Skip to main content

Full text of "Achaemenid Studies (1996)"

See other formats

Christopher Tuplin 









nz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart 

I aos I e 1 


Christopher Tuplin 

The Failings of Empire 

A Reading of Xenophon 
Hellenics 2.3.11-7.5.27 

1992. 237 Seiten 
(Historia-Einzelschrift 76). 
Kart. ISBN 3-515-05912-1 

Current views of Xenophon's account of 
404-362 BC under-play the fact that it is a 
chronological report of politico-military 
events which should be taken seriously 
and not seen merely as arbitrary pegs for 
didactic utterances. A reading of this 
idiosyncratic narrative offered which shows 
how, by interplay of direct stress, aliusive- 
ness and telling silence, Xenophon invites 
a largely negative attitude to the major 
states and their leaders as they strive un- 
successfully for predominance. The record 
of Spartan aims and achievements is not- 
ably gloomy, but Thebes, Athens and Ar- 
cadia are also treated with scant respect. 
The disorder with which the work ends is 
the logical conclusion and a real source of 
discontent, not an excuse for terminating 
a narrative in which its author had lost 


The work is well argued and has a solid 
introduction dealing with Hellenics cri- 
ticism, several appendixes, and a rather 
exhaustive bibliography." 

Religious Studies 

Thomas Clark Loening 

The Reconciliation 

Agreement of 

404/02 B.D. 

in Athens 

Its Content and Application 

1987. 166 Seiten 
(Hermes-Einzelschrift 53). 
Kart. ISBN 3-515-04832-4 

In seiner Schrift vom Staat der Athener 
hat Aristoteles uns den Vertrag uberlie- 
fert, durch den - nach dem unglucklichen 
Ausgang des Peloponnesischen Krieges 
und den ihn begleitenden inneren Unru- 
hen in Athen - die beiden Parteiungen der 
Burgerkriegswirren (Demokraten und Oli- 
garchen) im Jahre 403 zu einem friedli- 
chen Ausgleich zu kommen suchten. Der 
Autor hat diesen wichtigen Vertrag unter 
Heranziehung auch anderer Quellen, ins- 
besondere derattischen Redner, erstmals 
ausfOhrlich kommentiert. Nicht nur die po- 
litische Geschichte, vor allem auch die 
athenische Rechtsgeschichte ist durch die- 
sen Kommentar auBergewohnhch berei- 


-This thoughtful and painstaking study will 
be very useful to scholars interested in 
Athenian politics. Helpful appendices and 
indices tell readers where they can fina 
what, so that individuals concerned with 
particular issues will find this a convenient 
work to consult." Classical World 

"Loening hat mit diesem Buch wesentlich 
zur F6rderung unseres Wissens Qber die 
Dialyseis von 403 beigetragen. Seine zahl- 
losen Einzelbemerkungen konnten hiernur 
ungenQgend gewCirdigt werden. Niemana, 
der uber diese Zeit arbeitet, wird sich em 
Nicht-Nachschlagen leisten k6nnen. 
Zs. d. Savigny-Stiftung f. Rechtsgesch. 

Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart 

Postfach 101061 - D-70009 Stuttgart 


y^M^-^^K^^^A^^^S^^ y-', : - : ^%^'41WM^^<--\ 












HEFT 99 



****** !\ ! * • " V 

/••v. ^' <>. -"• v\ 


'■■■-: •■ . » 


Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme 
fHistoria / Einzelschriften] 

Historia : Zeitschrift fur alte Geschichte. Einzelschriften - 
Stuttgart : Steiner 

Friiher Schriftenreihe 

Reihe Einzelschriften zu: Historia 
NE: Historia-Einzelschriften 

H. 99. Tuplin, Christopher: Achaemenid studies. - 1996 
Tuplin, Christopher: 
Achaemenid studies / Christopher Tuplin. - Stuttgart : Steiner, 

(Historia : Einzelschriften ; H 99) 
ISBN 3-515-06901-1 


ISO 9706 

Jede Verwertung des Werkes auBerhalb der Grenzen des Urheberrechtseesetzes ist 
unzulass.g und strafbar. Dies gilt insbesondere fur Obersetzung, SmcfSve 

anlagen.01996 by Franz SteinerVerlag Wiesbaden GmbH.Sitz Stuttgart Gedrucktauf 

sr G ~^ 


Preface g 

Abbreviations j 

Chapter 1: Cyprus before and under the Achaemenids: Problems in 

Chronology, Strategy, Assimilation and Ethnicity 9 

A. A Chronological Problem 9 

B. Strategy 15 

(i) The early Achaemenid and Hellenistic contexts 15 

(ii) The Neo-Assyrian context 18 

(iii) The post- Assyrian context 32 

C. Persian Evaluation and Assimilation 38 

D. Ethnicity 55 

Chapter 2: The Parks and Gardens of the Achaemenid Empire 80 

A. Pre-Achaemenid Material 80 

B. Achaemenid Material 88 

(i) Archaeological or material remains 88 

(ii) Written sources 92 

Chapter 3: The Place of Persia in Athenian Literature 132 

A. Tragedy 133 

B. Persian Landscape and Geography 136 

C. Comedy # 141 

D. Orators and Philosophers 153 

E. General Observations 164 

Appendix 175 

Bibliography 153 

Indices 201 

A. General Index 201 

B. Index of Names 206 

(i) Personal names 206 

(ii) Geographical names 209 

C. Index of Sources 213 

(i) Greek and Latin literary texts 213 

(ii) Greek epigraphic documents 222 

(iii) Greek papyri 223 

(iv) Akkadian, Aramaic, Elamite, Hebrew, Persian texts 224 


Versions of the studies which follow were presented at various dates in 1992— 
1994 to seminar audiences in Liverpool, Nottingham, Paris, St Petersburg and 
Ekaterinburg. I am grateful for comments received on these occasions - to which 
I have probably not paid as much attention as they merited. I would like to take 
this opportunity to express my thanks to the British Academy, the British Council 
and the Research Development Fund of the University of Liverpool for the 
financial assistance which made the relevant trips to France and Russia possible. 
I should also particularly like to thank Dr Andrei Zaikov of the Liberal Arts 
University, Ekaterinburg for the invitation which took me to Russia in September 

The text which follows was substantially complete in the latter part of 1994. 
The appendix and some material on Ptolemaic and Roman documents from Egypt 
in chapter 2 were added over the next four months. For further delay since then 
two causes can be identified. One is relatively straightforward, if mechanically 
tiresome, viz. the need to transform the text from Amstrad PCW to PC-compa- 
tible form - a process which inter alia led me to conclude that the complete 
exclusion of Greek characters was the lesser of two evils. The other is more 
serious (and more subjective) and consists in the pedagogic and administrative 
culture which now blights the professional existence of British academics - a 
culture whose malign capacity to depress its victims and distract them from the 
completion of even the simplest enterprises derives not from the intrinsic scale of 
the week-to-week tasks it imposes upon them but from the debased ideology by 
which it is underpinned. To be lectured by a political establishment composed of 
dysfunctionally competitive attention-seekers on the merits of performance indi- 
cators, value-for-money and so-called quality assessment is distressing. To find 
oneself the servant of a system in which education is the delivery of doses of 
information or material measured according to a scale designed to preclude 
significant mismatch between teachers' aspirations for pupils and pupils' capaci- 
ty to meet those aspirations is an affront to all reasonable academic values. The 
glorious wastefulness proper to genuine educational procedures (and intellectual 
activity in general) has been cast aside in favour of targets and accountability, and 
those of us with less than wholly resilient temperaments can lapse into private 
despondency for months at a time. 

Christopher Tuplin 

10 January 1996 


ABC A.K.Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Locust Valley 1975) 

ABL R.F.Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters (Chicago 1892-1914) 

ABV J.D.Beazley, Athenian Black-figure Vase-Painters (Oxford 1956) 

Agora The Athenian Agora. Results of excavations conducted by the American School 

of Classical Studies in Athens (Princeton 1953-) 
Amathonte A.Hermary (ed.), Amathonte (Paris, 198 1-) 

ANEP J.B.Pritchard, Ancient Near East in Pictures (Princeton 1969) 

ANET J.B.Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament 

(Princeton 1974) 
AR Archaeological Reports [supplement to JHS] 

ARAB D.Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia (Chicago 1926-7) 

ARF J.D.Beazley, Athenian Red-Figure Vase-Painters (Oxford 1963) 

ARI A.K.Grayson, Assyrian Royal Inscriptions (Wiesbaden 1972, 1976) 

Atlas A descriptive atlas of the Cesnola collection ofCypriot Antiquities (New York 

BE Bulletin Epigraphique (published in REG) 

BHLT A.K.Grayson, Babylonian Historical- Literary Texts (Toronto 1975) 

BM Sculpture F.N.Pryce, Catalogue of Sculpture: Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities 

(London 1928/1931) 
CAD Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (Chicago 1956-) 

CCA Corpus of Cypriot Antiquities (Goteborg 1969-) 

CCK D.Wiseman, Chronicles of the Chaldaean Kings (London 1956) 

Chron. Chronique de Fouilles (published in BCH) 

CIS Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum (Paris 1881—) 

CS Cypriot Syllabary 

CT Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum (London 

Cyr. J.N.Strassmaier, Inschriften von Cyrus (Leipzig 1890) 

DGE E.Schwyzer, Dialectorum Graecorum Exempla Epigraphica Potiora (Leipzig 

FdX Fouilles de Xanthos (Paris 1958-1992) 

GA Greek alphabet 

GGM Geographici Graeci Minores (Paris 1880) 

ICS O.Masson, Inscriptions chypriotes syllabiques (Paris 1961) 

IG Inscriptiones Graecae (Berlin 1873-) 

I.Kour. T.B.Mitford, Inscriptions ofKourion (Philadelphia 1971) 

LLabr. J.Crampa, Labraunda III (Stockholm 1969, 1972) 

LMylas. W.Bliimel, Die Inschriften von Mylasa (Bonn 1987-) 

LTrall. F.Polkajov, Die Inschriften von Tralles und Nysa (Bonn 1989) 

K texts in T.Kock, Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta (Leipzig 1880/1888) 

KA texts in R.Kassel & C.Austin, Poetae Comici Graeci (Berlin 1983-) 

KAI H.Donner & W.Rollig, Kanaanaische und Aramaische Inschriften (Wiesbaden 

Kaibel G.Kaibel, Epigrammata Graeca ex Lapidibus Conlecta (Berlin 1878) 

Kition M.Guzzo Amadassi & V.Karageorghis, Fouilles de Kition III: Les Inscriptions 

Pheniciennes (Nicosia 1977) 
LdA Lexikon der Agyptologie (Wiesbaden 1972-) 



OCD 2 















Leixon Iconographicum Mythologiae Graecae (Zurich 1981—) 

Oxford Classical Dictionary (Oxford 1968) 

texts in R.Hallock, Persepolis Fortification Tablets (Chicago 1969) 

texts in Hallock 1978 

Persepolis Fortification Seal 

texts in G.Cameron, Persepolis Treasury Tablets (Chicago 1948) 

Reallexikon der Assyriologie (Berlin 1932—) 

C.B.Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic World (London 1934) 

State Archives of Assyria (Helsinki 1987-) 

Fouilles de Salamine de Chypre (Paris 1967-) 

Sardis: publications of the American Society for the excavation of Sardis 

(Leiden 1916-) 

E.Gjerstad (et al), Swedish Cypriot Expedition (Stockholm 1934-72) 

Textes Cun&formes du Louvre 

M.N. Tod, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions II (Oxford 1949) 

Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 

Yale Oriental Series 

References in the form G-1654 are to unpublished Persepolis Fortification tablets. It should be 
understood that information about their contents derives not from the original tablets but from 
copies of R.T.Hallock's working transcriptions. These transcriptions are of high quality and 
accuracy but are not fully colated or verified. A similar caveat applies to unpublished tablets 
originally read by Cameron which retain old serial numbers in the form Fort. 1364. 






In Phoenix 1991 G.S.Shrimpton proposed a new chronology for Artaxerxes IPs 
first invasion of Egypt and for the major events of his war with Evagoras of 
Cyprus. This chronology may be summarised as follows: 

389 Capture of Tyre 

387/6 King's Peace 

386 (sp./s) Battle of Citium (Diodorus 15.3, Theopompus 1 15 F 103.5-7) 

386 (aut.) Pharnabazus invades Egypt (Isocrates 4.140) 

386 (late) Evagoras' disappointing trip to Egypt (Diodorus 15.4.3,8.1) 

384 Evagoras has by now lost all Cyprus and is under siege; starts 

negotiation with Tiribazus and Orontes. Tiribazus denounced by 
Orontes, cashiered and sent to Artaxerxes for trial. (15.8.3-9.2, 
Theopompus 1 15 F 103.9) A truce is negotiated which is effectiv- 
ely the end of the war, though not formally so. The period of 
waiting from now till end of war is one of low morale in Persian 
forces in Cyprus, mutinous because of arrest of Tiribazus (Di- 
odorus 15.9). 

384/3 Revolt of Glos, damaging Persian fleet and Pharnabazus' cam- 

paign (Diodorus 15.9.3-5). Pharnabazus abandons Egypt after 
three years fight (inclusive reckoning) 

384-383, 383 Cadusian campaign (cf. Shrimpton 1991: 2, 17 for varying state- 
ment of date). 

383/382 Acquittal of Tiribazus who is reinstated in Cyprus, while Orontes 

is demoted. (The date may actually be early 383: Shrimpton 1991: 

381/380 End of Cypriot War 

The more conventional view is that the Cypriot events from the battle of 
Citium onwards fall in the period 384/3-381/0. 

1. Diodorus puts the Cypriot war narrative under 386/5 (15.2-4) and 385/4 
(15.8-9) - two archon years because he knew (cf. 9) that the war contained only 
two continuous years of fighting. (Everything he has put under the two archon 
years is certainly part of the "continuous war"; the Tiribazus affair in 15.8.4-5 is 


Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

only an interlude, after which Evagoras is found boldly resisting the siege [i e 
fighting back].) He also knew that the war lasted in some sense for ten years and 
on his own showing (14.98) should have put the end in 381/0. Why then did he 
pick on 386/5 and 385/4? Shrimpton's answer is that Citium actually happened in 
386. The alternative answer is that Diodorus has postulated that settlement of the 
Corinthian War left Artaxerxes free to pursue Evagoras ( 14. 1 10.6) and is unawa- 
re of any other eastern Mediterranean developments (e.g. Egypt) which might 
need to be fitted in. One may add that in Panegyricus Isocrates certainly took the 
view that fighting (specifically a siege of Salamis) was going on in c.381. 
Shrimpton might argue that this is simply because Isocrates had decided to make 
the conflict seem as long as possible (to make the point that Artaxerxes still had 
not won), whereas Diodorus, knowing how long the state of war war actually 
lasted, chose to minimize the period of actual fighting as a way of making 
Evagoras look impressive. I merely ask whether it really does serve such a 
purpose and whether it is sure that Diodorus (or Ephorus) was particularly 
concerned to cry Evagoras up anyway. 

2. Diodorus speaks in 15.2.1 about Artaxerxes' long preparations of the 
forces for the Cypriot war and this might seem to require some delay after the 
King's Peace. But it may need to be viewed sceptically. All we know for sure is 
that some element of the army used came from Phocaea and Cyme and that 
deployment of that might be capable of happening quite quickly after 387/6. (For 
Shrimpton the use of western forces and appointment of separate commanders is 
due to the contemporaneity of the Egyptian campaign. On a conventional view it 
is no doubt due to the failure of the Egyptian campaign commanders and their 
forces.) More important are the contents of 15.3. 1-3: famine in the Persian forces 
in Cyprus due to Evagoras' piratical actions against transport ships; mutiny; 
whole Pesian fleet actually went off to bring supplies from Cilicia; Evagoras' 
raising of extra triremes locally and from Egypt. Shrimpton says nothing about 
any of this. It belongs between Tiribazus and Orontes' arrival in Cyprus which is 
after the King's Peace and the battle of Citium. Can it really all fit into a few 
winter or spring months in 386? It surely takes some time for a large expeditio- 
nary force to be reduced to "famine" and to redeployment of its whole fleet for 
logistical actions. 

3. The same passage also mentions Evagoras' acquisition of extra triremes 
from Achons. On his trip to Egypt after Citium by contrast Evagoras only got 
money from Achons, and not as much as he wanted at that. Shrimpton's explana- 
tion is that in between two moments the actual Persian invasion of Egypt has 
begun. If so, it follows that Evagoras' visit to Egypt took place during the Persian 
invasion and that Achoris originally lent triremes to Evagoras a matter of weeks 
before that invasion started when its imminence must have been known Both 
strike me as unlikely. 

4. A prominent feature of Isocrates' presentation of the war is that as a side- 

kh ^T mCia md Syria Were ravaged (4,161 > and most cities in Cilicia 
rebelled (4.161; 9.62). Diodorus refers to control of virtually all of Cyprus and of 
lyre and some other Phoenician cities in his description of the initial situation in 

A. A Chronological Problem 


15.2.3f (i.e. the situation before era of battle of Citium). It is implicit in Shrimpton's 
scheme that this can only apply before Citium, for if (as he stresses) it is 
strategically necessary to have Cyprus neutralized before attacking Egypt it will a 
fortiori be necessary for Phoenicia and Cilicia to be neutralized. But Isocrates 
writes as though disturbance is continuing at time of Panegyricus. He explicitly 
says that most Cilician cities are held by rebels. Moreover there is no justification 
for viewing the perfect tense formulations in case of Phoenicia and Syria (Pho- 
enicia and Syria have been made anastatoi; Tyre has been taken by king's 
enemies) as an evasion of the truth (they have been taken at some time in the past 
but are not now in anti-Persian hands): the perfects are just like perfect tense 
aphesteke used of the revolt of Egypt and Cyprus, which are definitely events still 

going on. 

Items in Diodorus 15.2.2, 3.3, 4.1 both before and after Citium seem to 
presuppose Persian control of Cilicia, so the Evagoran advances there may have 
to be located later. This is admittedly somewhat suprising, since Diodorus' 
narrative suggests that Evagoras was in fairly restricted circumstances after 
Citium - though able to make a diplomatic trip to Egypt. Perhaps we should 
conclude that the picture is exaggerated. Or perhaps Evagoras' direct involve- 
ment in Cilicia was small: Isocrates 9.62 and esp. 4.161 speak more vaguely of 
his effect there by contrast with direct assertions about the ravaging of Phoenicia. 
The Cilician defection may simply have been prompted by Evagoras' model and 
occurred during the Orontes interlude. It may also have only involved places in 
Rough Cilicia, in which case, of course, the Diodoran items indicating Persian 
control in Cilicia (primarily Hollow Cilicia) would not be a terminus post quern in 

the first place. 

As for Phoenicia/Syria: on conventional chronology one would place the 
destabilization of Phoenicia after the Egyptian campaign and in the era immedia- 
tely prior to the actual Persian campaign in Cyprus. This still seems to me a 
satisfactory scenario. It will be part of the fall-out from Persia's defeat in the Nile 
Valley (compare Isocrates' observation (4.140) that the rebels in Egypt, having 
repelled attack, are now trying to establish a hegemony over their neighbours) 
and it is arguably precisely the active cooperation of Evagoras and Achoris which 
engenders Persian action against Cyprus. The alliance with Achoris in 15.2.3 is 
part of the starting-conditions of the actual war, but there is no need to assume it 
is of great antiquity. (Theopompus 1 15 F 103. 1 is certainly no guarantee of this.) 

5. One reason for the conventional placing of the Cypriot campaigns after the 
Egyptian expedition is that Isocrates apparently puts them in that order in 4. 140- 
141: kai proton men [Egypt], meta de tauta [Cyprus]. Is this passage consistent 
with Shrimpton's scenario in which they are contemporary and the battle of 
Citium actually (and in his view logically for strategic reasons) precedes the 
invasion of Egypt? Shrimpton justifies it by saying that the order is topical not 
chronological and that Egypt is mentioned first because the campaign there 
finished first. This is debatable. The combination kai proton men...meta de 
tauta.... occurs only three other times in Isocrates. In 12.43-44 and 16.29-31 he 
certainly intends the relevant episodes to be in chronological order. The case of 


Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

A. A Chronological Problem 


10.61-62 is trickier, since the subject matter is mythological (what the deified 
Helen did for her brothers and husband), but there is no impediment to our 
supposing that Isocrates thought of the items as in chronological order. Certainly 
his normal usage when putting things in logical or topical order is proton 
men...epeita de (34 times) or occasionally proton men...deuteron de (4 times) and 
it seems natural to assume that when he deliberately opts for meta de tauta it is a 
sign that temporal order is involved. It remains just possible that the order of 
termination of the two episodes (Egypt, Cyprus) is the chronological point at 
issue, but I do not find it at all likely. 

6. Shrimpton maintains that Isocrates' claim in 4.140-141 that "the King has 
wasted six years in attempt to conquer Evagoras" must have Citium as its starting 
point; if Citium was much more recent Isocrates might as well have more 
impressively said "ten years" (counting from the origin of the conflict in c.390); 
only a battle of Citium dated in 386 is a sufficiently important intermediate 
reference point to justify this. Several comments suggest themselves. 

(a) Whenever Citium occurred there was theoretically no impediment to 
Isocrates* making the same claim in Panegyricus as he later made in Evagoras 
(the one reproduced in Ephorus' history) that the King had been at war with 
Evagoras since 391/390. On the face of it the reference to the "six" years could be 
called oddly understated on any chronology. 

(b) One might, however, ask whether we can be sure that the concept of a ten 
year war was available to Isocrates in 381? Did he then know about Artaxerxes' 
instructions to Hecatomnus in c.390 to suppress Evagoras, instructions which 
were not in fact executed but which are most tangibly what justifies the statement 
that the Cypriot War lasted ten years? Isocrates refers to Hecatomnus in Panegy- 
ricus 162 without making any mileage out of his non-cooperation against Evago- 
ras; instead he claims that he would be helpful to a panhellenic war of liberation 
and says "in truth he has rebelled long ago", a speculative assertion about the 
Canan's state of mind which probably in practice indicates that he had done no 
such thing - or at least that Isocrates did not know that he had. It might be that, as 
of 381, Isocrates reckoned that Evagoras' threats to Cypriot cities around 390 
were a "private" affair and therefore seized upon the King's Peace's formal 
reassertion of Persian suzerainty over Cyprus as the best way of making Evago- 
ras' conflict with Persia, actually initiated in c.383, seem as long as possible. 
(One implication of this view would, of course, be that the clear statement of 
Xenophon Hellenica 4.8.24 that the Athenian squadron on its way to Cyprus in 
summer 390 was going to help in a war against Artaxerxes represents hindsight. 
Nothing in the more closely contemporary Lysias XIX actually confirms that the 
war was seen as anti-Persian at the time.) 

(c) The actual phraseology of 4.141, which involves a striking anacolouthon, 
decidedly avoids any clear statement that the king's campaign against Evagoras 
had been going on for six years. Indeed I am not even sure that he is even trying 
falsely to imply as much. It is the King's slowness in getting round to doing 
things, which is highlighted at least as much as the profound inefficacy of his 
military forces. If Citium had happened six years earlier Isocrates should ar- 
guably have exploited that fact more unambivalently. 

7. The other important source requiring comment besides Diodorus and 
Isocrates is Theopompus 115 F 103, a summary of Philippica XII. Shrimpton 
claims that this is an orderly narrative which establishes an early date for Citium. 
I do not find this at all certain. 

(a) The way that Achoris' symmakhia with the Pisidians suddenly pops up at 
13, an event which must precede 380, after the fragment has already carried us in 
12' to the death of Evagoras sometime in the mid 370s, is a clear demonstration 
that the fragment is not strictly chronological. 

(b) The recurrence to Achoris at 13 may reveal that the whole focus of the 
book was Achoris, embracing three distinct areas of activity or indeed alliance, 
(a) with Barkaioi, (b) with Evagoras, (c) with Pisidians, each of which carried 
with it varying amounts of varyingly digressive narrative. 1 If so, although as the 
epitome stands it is clear that Theopompos was also interested in Evagoras in his 
own right, it does not follow that we should treat the epitome as an orderly, 
annalistic account of Greek history in the period. At best it is an account of 
Evagoras hung onto Achoris; and it is not necessarily an entirely orderly account 
even of Evagoras' history: for example, Achoris material assistances to Evagoras 
are not the object of any comment within 2-11, the Cypriot war narrative, but 
must all have stood at the point corresponding to the end of 1. 

(c) Admittedly the absence of Persian invasion of Egypt may tell against any 
straightforward idea that Philippica XII is about Achoris. Yet something odd is 
going on: if we accept a judgement like Shrimpton's that XII began a seven or 
eight book digression [i.e. XII-XIX, apparently] on eastern matters covering a 
period from the 390s till Artaxerxes Ill's reconquest of Egypt, one would assume 
that earlier unsuccessful reconquests e.g. Pharnabazus' would have figured so- 
mewhere. One may add that enantia pratton tdi Persei in 103.1 also suggests 
clearly that Achoris' disposition towards Artaxerxes is important in its own right; 
that Book XIII spoke of Chabrias and Agesilaus in Egypt; and that the digressive 
section starts at a point at which main chronological framework of Philippica has 
reached late 350s, when an abortive Persian invasion of Egypt was undertaken. I 
suppose that for the purpose of Photius' proof of reading Book XII any initial 
explanations in that book of its part in a larger pattern of essentially Persia- 
connected digression might have got omitted. Of course the absence of explicit 
reference to Pharnabazus' invasion may seem especially surprising on Shrimpton's 
scenario, which makes them contemporary and inter-related. 

(d) In Shrimpton's argument the crucial issue is whether 7-8 prove that the 
battle of Citium comes in a 386 horizon close to peace of Antalcidas as opposed 
to a 383 onwards one. There are actually two references to the Peace. The first (5) 
presents it in its guise as a King's Peace, the second in its guise as a Sparta- 

1 In the case of the Barkaioi evidently not extensive, otherwise Photius would surely have 
retailed its contents (he is after all making the epitome to prove that the book still existed 
and that he had read it). In the case of Pisidia, on the other hand, a rather wide-ranging, 
Herodotean divagation was prompted, taking in Aspendian and Pamphylian origins and the 
conflict of Pamphylian Telmessus(?) with Pericles of Limyra - again a topic going well 
beyond Achoris' death into an era not far removed from Evagoras* demise. 



Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

A. A Chronological Problem 


exploited diplomatic exercise (7-8). That something odd is going on is suggested 
by the way that "how Sparta broke the treaty [sc. with the King]" precedes "the 
manner in which they established the Peace of Antalcidas" (i.e. the self same 
agreement with the King). Perhaps tina de tropon covers not so much (or only) 
"how" but "in what spirit" or "in what circumstances" or, bluntly, "why". The 
judgement about Sparta breaking the agreements is surely one about Sparta's 
behaviour after 387/6 like the one in Diodorusl5.5, not a judgement about her 
behaviour between the arrival of the rescript and some later moment still in 387/ 
386 at which the peace was "made". The pertinence of the matter is Sparta's 
willingness to entertain Cypriot ambassadors (and we may add the possibility of 
alleged contact with Tiribazus and the actuality of contact with Glos). Could 
there further be implicit in the Athenian reference some talk of the way that 
Athens, despite earlier Evagoras connections, did not now help him - even some 
talk about Chabrias, who had been in Cyprus in early 380s, but then withdrew to 

8. A central point in Shrimpton's reconstruction is a strategic argument, that 
the Persians could not attack Egypt while Cyprus remained undealt with; hence 
the two campaigns must be contemporary. This argument depends on assump- 
tions about Evagoras' actual intentions/resources and their possible threat to the 
Egyptian enterprise. If we postulate that Evagoras all along was basically ambi- 
tious to be King of Cyprus, even King of Cyprus under Persian hegemony, things 
may look different. 

(a) The strength of the King's interest in suppressing Evagoras is at least 
fitful. Artaxerxes has to be persuaded to do something about Evagoras by other 
Cypriots. He decides to do so - on basis, indeed, of a strategic calculation that 
Cyprus' position enables it to "protect Asia from the front" (propolemein tes 
Asias) - and appoints Hecatomnus of Caria to take action. Hecatomnus did 
nothing substantial, it seems, yet this does not seem to have resulted in any 
damage to him. As I have already suggested one may have doubts about his being 
demonstrably a source of money for Evagoras at a time at which Evagoras was 
openly allied with rebel Achoris or engaging in attacks upon Phoenicia. I would 
not be surprised if Hecatomnus sympathized with Evagoras' Cypriot ambitions, 
as one satrapal dynast to another would-be satrapal dynast, and dragged his feet 
for that reason. At any rate the King was not sufficiently passionately engaged to 
do anything about this dereliction. 

(b) Diodorus' statement of Artaxerxes' reasons for interesting himself in 
Evagoras at all is interesting (14.98). The discourse is almost formulated as 
though Cyprus is not already part of his realm; this is in line with the way that 
Amathus and the rest say they will help Artaxerxes acquire the island. It is as 
though the situation before had been an island essentially independent of any 
outside empire (though with an ally of the Persian king in the shape of King 
Agyris) and containing no single dominant internal power. Evagoras has formed 
idea of becoming such a dominant internal power. Amathus and the rest are 
looking for an 'ally' to stop him and light upon the Persian King - who solemnly 
decides to make an alliance (summakhein). This is of course a misleading picture. 

But it was possible because the preceding Persian attitude to Cyprus had been, or 
was treated by Ephorus as being, very detached. Ephorus did not think Artaxerxes 
regarded Evagoras as posing any immediate positive threat to his empire. The 
boot is on the other foot. To "acquire" Cyprus would represent a new strategic 
advantage (a forward defence for Asia), not the suppression of a new threat 
(namely Cyprus in the hands of an aggressively hostile power). 2 

In short, Shrimpton's strategic observation is in principle fair enough, but it is 
open to us to say that it simply did not become relevant until after Pharnabazus' 
defeat in Egypt, when Egyptian forces started making forays into Syria-Palestine 
and Evagoras was tempted to get in on the act. (Rebellion in Cyprus did not have 
to imply disturbance in the Levant; it did not do so in the Ionion Revolt as far as 
we know.) Indeed, if the war with Evagoras did not happen until 383-381, then 
we are compelled to the view that Artaxerxes regarded Cyprus and its troubles as 
(in the actual circumstances of c.386) strategically irrelevant to and far less 
important than attempted recovery of Egypt, because he believed that Evagoras 
had no extra-Cypriot ambitions or capabilities. This seems to me a perfectly 
reasonable view (and one in line with his earlier tolerance of the clash with 
Anaxagoras and non-payment of tribute), and there is nothing in either Isocrates' 
Panegyricus or his Evagoras which contradicts it. Indeed even from the vantage 
point of the late 370s or 360s the most that Isocrates will claim for Evagoras in 
the way of a major ambition is the spread of hellenism both inside Salamis and in 
the area "surrounding the island", where the majority of people marry Greek 
wives, own Greek possessions, and follow Greek customs, and there more expo- 
nents of mousike and other paideusis spend time there than among those they 
previously consorted with (9.50). Of course, he is keen to suggest that Artaxerxes 
perceived Evagoras as a huge threat; he even compares him with Cyrus to the 
latter' s detriment - Artaxerxes let Cyrus reach the gates of his palace before 
confronting him but saw fit to deal with Evagoras from afar. But that contrast, of 
course, cuts both ways and on the whole Isocrates leaves me with the strong 
feeling of someone who is trying to claim for Evagoras a degree of aggressive 
intent which he really knows is unjustified and which he is not prepared explicitly 
to assign to him. 


(i) The early Achaemenid and Hellenistic contexts 

There is no explicit record of the date or circumstances of the entry of Cyprus into 
the Achaemenid empire. All we know is that it had happened by the time of the 
conquest of Egypt in 525 in which Cypriot ships participated (Herodotus 3.13, 
19, 26). The same terminus ante quern applies to the Levantine Phoenician cities 
as well. Views have oscillated between a relatively early date, in the 540s, and a 

2 Statements about the strategic interrelation of east Aegean islands and Anatolia appear in 
Isoc.4.163 and Dem.15.12, but they cast little light on the present issue. 



Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

date immediately prior to the Egyptian undertaking. 2 Gjerstad's art-historical 
arguments for an early date are certainly without foundation as has recently been 
stressed (Watkin 1987); and it would be unwise to attribute much significance to 
the claim in Xenophon's Cyropaedia (7.4.2, 8.6.8, 21) that Cyprus joined the 
empire under King Cyrus. Moreover we do not have to assume that recognition of 
Persian suzerainty by the Phoenicians and the Cypriots were exactly contempor- 
ary. After all Cyrus' conquest of Babylon in 539 already in itself raised the 
question of Syria-Palestine and Phoenicia in a way not true of Cyprus, for the 
Levant was in the neo-Baby Ionian sphere of influence and control whereas 
Cyprus was a tributary subject of Egypt; and one would naturally assume that 
Phoenician monarchs were among the kings of the west who brought tribute and 
kissed Cyrus' feet (ANET 315-6). In fact it seems perfectly logical to suppose 
that the detachment of Cyprus did not come until the 520s. It is also safe to 
assume in any case that the extension of Persian rule in both areas was not 
something which had to be achieved by the exertion of great military force: and in 
the case of Cyprus it will be particularly easy to imagine that the call to defect 
from Egypt was obeyed with little demur if it eventually came when the Achae- 
menid empire already embraced the territories once severally under the sway of 
the Median, Lydian and Neo-Babylonian kings and had thus already exceeded the 
range of any previous Ancient Near Eastern empire. 

The issue of such a call by Cambyses had, of course, precise strategic 
motives, which were a sufficient, if not a necessary, cause. As a general rule a 
plan to invade Egypt could not prudently be undertaken while Cyprus was 
actually under the suzerainty of the Egyptian ruler and might be mobilized 
against the invader. Contrariwise an Egyptian ruler fearful of invasion would 
naturally wish either to control Cyprus or at least to feel assured that Cyprus was 
not available to his antagonist. It is this rule of thumb which accounts for Ptolemy 
I's early interest in the island, threatened as he was first by Perdiccas and then by 
Antigonus, threats which also, of course, led him to want control of Syria- 
Palestine (Appian's observation in Syriaca 52 that Ptolemy sought Syria as an 
epikheirima against Cyprus, if anything, gets things exactly the wrong way 
around). Ptolemy's assertion of authority in Cyprus before the (purely terrestrial) 
invasion of Palestine in 3 1 2 and the Antigonid reconquest of Cyprus in 306 as a 
prelude to an abortive invasion of Egypt conform perfectly to the general strate- 
gic rule, and the latter is a neat parallel to Cambyses' position 120 years earlier. 3 
Yet one has to be a little wary of "general rules"; precise situations may 
render them ineffective. For example: Ptolemy recovered much of Syria-Palesti- 
ne south of the Eleutheros, though not Tyre and Sidon, in 301, seven years before 
getting Cyprus back. Tyre and Sidon then apparently remained in Antigonid 
hands for eight more years until Philocles defected. 4 Clearly Cyprus will not be a 

3 App.5yr.52. Polyb.5.34.6, by contrast, notes that Ptolemy II and III (cf. Seibert 1971: 84) 
attacked the Seleucids" being in control of Cyprus and Coile Syria". - 313/12* Diod 19 79- 
86, Paus.1.6.5, Just.15.1.6, Plut.0rr.5-6, Marm.Par. 239 B 16.-306: Diod.20.46f, Just.l5.2.6f, 
Plut.Z)rr.l5-16, App.Syr.54, Polyaen,4.7.7, Marm.Par. 239 B21 

4 Diod.20. 1 1 3, 2 1 . 1 .4, Paus. 1 .6.8, Plut.0rr.32-33. The delayed recovery of Tyre and Sidon is 
questioned by Walbank 1988: 214; but cf. Grainger 1991- 48 

B. Strategy 


key to the strategy of the region if the power holding it is preoccupied elsewhere: 
Demetrius' fleet was in the vicinity of the Black Sea approaches at the time 
instead of making life difficult for Ptolemy in the Levant and Antigonus was busy 
getting killed at Ipsus (Seibert 1971: 232f; Will 1988: 111). And Ptolemy pre- 
sumably considered Tyre and Sidon an insufficiently important problem for him 
actually to exert the strategic advantage which he theoretically had - unless 
indeed poverty of surviving source material prevents us appreciating a campaign 
of pressure lying behind Philocles' eventual desertion of the Antigonid cause. 
Such poverty may also help account for another conundrum. Bland statements 
about the strategic importance of Cyprus contrast rather strikingly with the way 
modern accounts of the third century and in particular of the series of six Syrian 
Wars (the five traditionally so named plus the earlier War of Damascus in 280/ 
79) follow ancient evidence in virtually never mentioning the island. All of these, 
except perhaps the Second Syrian War (whose theatre has traditionally been 
claimed to be entirely west Anatolian and Aegean), were conflicts between the 
Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms concerning possession of Coele Syria and 
arising fundamentally out of the fact that the post-Ipsus division of territories 
awarded Coele Syria to Seleucus at a time when Ptolemy actually held it. Ptolemy 
was in undisputed control of Cyprus throughout the period, yet the directly 
attested impact of that fact seems tiny. Students of Ptolemaic institutions reco- 
gnise that Cyprus was not the fleet's home until the second half of the second 
century. Ship-building may have gone on in the island, but during the third 
century the active bases were either further west (for Aegean interference) or in 
Phoenicia, and the manpower of the fleet, at whatever level, was primarily 
Egyptian or Phoenician. 5 Not until 196 did a Seleucid monarch (Antiochus III) 
even attempt to wrest the island from Ptolemaic possession, and that was at a time 
of rampant Seleucid activity and widespread Ptolemaic collapse. 6 Perhaps we are 
simply the victims of a lack of circumstantial sources to prove e.g. that the 
Ptolemaic marauders in Pausanias 1 .7.3 in the First Syrian War or the fleet of the 
Gurob papyrus in the Third or the fleet whose operations in south and west 
Anatolia are inferred from Ptolemy's treaty gains at the war's end (Will 1966/67: 
i 259f) made use of Cypriot ports; but it is hard wholly to repel the feeling that for 
some reason the conditions of the time made Cyprus much less significant than 
strategic rules would have suggested. 7 

This may be true at much later dates too: Maier 1968: 78 remarks that the 
Turkish capture of Cyprus was "strangely" delayed until 1570, well after the 
acquisition of Rhodes, Crete, Chios and Egypt. Perhaps it is only strange if one 
starts with the wrong presumptions. In the remainder of this section, however, I 

5 Van't Dack & Hauben 1978: 93; Hauben 1987: 216. See also Mitford 1983: 156. 

6 Liv.33.41, App.Syr.4, Dio 19.18, Zonar.9. 18 

7 This is captured by Shipley's view (1993: 12) that the Syrian wars resulted from (a) 
Ptolemaic desire for certain products of Coile Syria and (b) the intermittent need for a 
means of self-assertion by new rulers. The focus is certainly Levantine rather than east 


Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

B. Strategy 


wish to concentrate on pre-Achaemenid contexts of Cypriot involvement and 
marginality - a topic rarely addressed in its own right in the plenSmodem 
fcbhography on neo-Assyrian, neo-Babylonian and Late Egyptian imperii 

(ii) The Neo-Assyrian context 
It has been maintained that in general Neo-Assyrian imperialism was driven bv a 

Im^ts nf S ° P ^^ and "? br ° Ught With U m interest not j-t in tribuA 
payments of one sort or another but also in the commercial trading processed 
which went onin politico-military subject areas, processes of value ZtlZZ 
they generated prosperity which could be taxed and because they coS Z 
3 f h 1 Ch r nd commodities ^ the "right" directions. Tig ath-Pileser m 

^™\L'£i* ?? on his first incursion int ° south &** <£S 

99 • 330V annT f ^ an intereSt in the inCense *«*> < ND 4 00; Mitchell 
l i a m S ? ms ° pemng of the " sealed harb01 * of Egypt" south of Gaza 
Z^^:& Pt ^ nd ASSy f ianS t0 »* "^her, presented a cental 
Tf cZTTn Ph i ^ k feg r ' SuCh princi P les had P"*"* "PPUcatton. 
1 r r chant s ^r a T ° f thC SUbStantial role of Phoenician sea captain 
SunT o hat a Z mCIC1&l aCtmty and AsSyria ' S interest in the «« was thus 
mononl f C Com P° nent - For e^ple, Assyria looked to acquire a 

c7da?s P w y hichw C e eS t S t0 « ^ SOUFCeS (CyPreSS aS WeU aS ' even m °« thin, the 
Phoella^ Jel h u SOCme With thC Leban0n ^erland of the great 
SeI^' ' r rhapS Primarily f ° r ^^tural and furniture buil- 

non 8 iheles?nm Zl r T^ faVOUfable **"* With S*' 31 of T ? re in the 6 ™ 
rSnf ii' T tS °" commercial ^tivities and reserved to the Assyri- 

u^mfiS^r? ? oenician ships and and p ro P ert y' 10 ^ Nil ™ d 

af Sna ^ /k S?" ^^ ^ eXerCiSed ^^ a «** a g ent 
at Kashpuna (? = Kusba, 15 km. S of Tripoli) over half a cental earlier " The 

SEEM T F ? Sarhaddon ' s Action upon^S^uble 1 

K^hlddlf, g a m ^ lmC th3n ^ been habitual in ^e region he founded 

S^^SSS^^v ^ ° f CUtUng ° M Sid0nian mer " hante (Tadmor 
i*>6. 98, Spalinger 1974). Various conflicts in the region, e.g. with Ba'al of 

8 ^££S1E!^ has , been iden,ified at Te " er - Ru « eish > 20 *■• «»* <> f 

12 d T e tffromST s i^ r0 ^ agent> ^ ^ bC PreSent « the "P-hl of corespon- 
(Stolper ^89 IoiiTm ^"p™ 5 "' lnv ° lvi "g " M temi appears in CT 53.391.1-11 

l^^sj^e^s^ officiai is ™ d with — ■ 

Tyre 13 and Iakinlu of Aradus 14 in the later 660s, have also been thought to have 
had commercial causes, 15 The observation that there is a marked falling off in the 
level of Greek imports into the Levant from the mid eighth century onwards 
except at Tyre and Al Mina tempts the suggestion that Assyrian intrusion skewed 
commerical patterns in particular directions (Coldstream 1989). More generally, 
and in default of political unrest, it can be claimed that Phoenicia, because of its 
commercial potential, enjoyed a favoured status in Assyrian eyes. 16 

In these circumstances Cyprus naturally fell within or close to the Assyrians' 
horizon of interest, since the island was a stepping stone on the long-distance 
westerly trade, 17 had a permanent Phoenician population in Citium and (if not 
identical) Qartidahast, place(s) which stood in a colonial relationship to mainland 
Levantine Phoenician subjects of the empire, 18 and has been claimed to have seen 
an increase in Phoenician immigration during the later part of the Assyrian 
period. 19 Moreover, for those who accept that Al Mina in turn was (or contained) 
a Cypriot "colony" in Syria, 20 the trading interconnection went both ways and did 
not purely concern Phoenicia proper (even if there were also Phoenicians at Al 
Mina). 21 More specifically one view of Lulli's disaffection and eventual flight to 
Cyprus in 701 is that Assyrian conquest of Cyprus in 709 interfered with trading 
relations between Tyre and Citium (Elayi 1986a: 131; Elayi/Cavaigneaux 1979). 
This is developed from the assumption that what Josephus AJ 9.283 calls the 
revolt of Citium against Elulaeus is actually Citium' s submission to Assyria in 
709 (Nicolaou 1976: 314, Gjerstad 1979: 238), so that Lulli's action against this 
"revolt" was part and parcel of the anti-Assyrian actions which occasioned his 
eventual removal in 701. Elayi/Cavaigneaux 1979 and Elayi 1985b: 21 n.15 
believes that the commercial affront was such that Lulli actually recovered 
Citium more or less immediately after 709, and that the talk of an Assyrian attack 

13 ARAB 2.779 = ANET 295 = Streck 1916: 17 (Rassam); ARAB 2.847, 970; Elayi 1983. 

14 ARAB 2.780, 848, 912; ANET 296, 297; ABL 992 = Pfeiffer 1935: 137; Elayi 1983; Elayi 
1987a: 58. 

15 Hypothetical in the case of Ba'al; Iakinlu was explicitly accused of interfering with 
commercial shipping destined for the Assyrian karu(m). Both escaped with their lives. 

16 Larsen 1979: lOOf, Frankenstein 1979, Oded 1974: 38. 

17 Moscati 1973: 141; Bunnens 1983a, quoting inter alia Odyssey 455f. 

18 The relationship is of uncertain antiquity, of course, but a ninth century date is now 
respectable (e.g. Harden 1971:53; Nikolaou 1976: 313; Karageorghis 1982: 122) and 
Moscati 1973: 138 and others believe Joseph. Ap.1.1 19, AJ 8.146 to indicate a tenth century 
lien of Tyre over Citium. 

19 Nikolaou 1976: 315, Frankenstein 1979, Lipinski 1992: there is also talk of a "drastic" 
decrease of Greek imports into the island in 700/650 (Sorensen 1979: 294; Coldstream 

20 Roebuck 1959: 62f, Davis 1979: 87, Karageorghis 1982: 130, Coldstream 1989, Boardman 
1990: 37f. 

21 cf. Kestemont 1983: 76, Graham 1986: 51f, Elayi 1987b: 249, Bing 1985 [1994]. There was 
a lot of Greek material in Al Mina in 750/700, suggesting not just a "colony" but a 
flourishing one. Were there special arrangements under the Assyrian aegis which favoured 
Al Mina? Elayi 1993 now warns sternly against deducing Greek presence from Greek 
pottery; cf. also Rihl 1993: 96. 


Chapter 1 . Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

on Tyre in AJ 9.284 refers to an assault on Lulli by Sargon mendaciously 
reflected in the Dur Sharrukin cylinder's unparallelled reference to the king 
subduing the city (ARAB 2.118). But others think that Lulli' s action against 
Citium occurred before 709 (c. 730 according to Lipinski 1992: 63) and was, if 
anything, part of the occasion for Assyrian intervention in the island (Karageorg- 
his 1976: 109). The most that one can say with certainty is that the "revolt" 
tradition presupposes that Citium was indeed in some fashion tied to Tyre in the 
reign of Lulli, just as Qartihadast had a Sidonian "governor" in the days of 
Tiglath-Pileser Ill's tributary subject Hiram II (CIS 1.5). 22 For those who believe 
that Qartihadast is not identical with Citium, 23 the absence of Citium from the 
Cypriot vassal lists of the 670' s and 660' s (see below) probably shows that 
Citium was actually seen as part of Tyre, which will underline the linkage of 
mainland and island. But in any event the historiographical and inscriptional 
evidence makes it clear that that interest of whatever sort in Phoenicia was liable 
sooner or later to lead to interest in Cyprus. 

On the other hand it must be stressed that none of the textual evidence 
relating Assyrians with Cyprus makes any explicit reference to trading matters, 24 
and the suggestion of Albenda 1983 that the iconography of Khorsabad included 
a representation of timber being brought by sea from Cyprus, though initially 
seductive, is really very uncertain. (Its author is herself very circumspect about 
it.) One cannot even easily find suggestive texts which might relate to that most 
characteristic of Cypriot products (since the second millenium), viz. copper. 25 
The 100 talents of copper in the booty taken from Unqi = Pat(t)in (lower Orontes 
valley) in 738 are a possible case (Grayson 1991: 76). But the tribute lists of 
mainland subjects of the later eighth and seventh centuries, as distinct from those 
of Assurnasirpal II 26 or Shalmanesser III, 27 apparently neglect the commodity, 

22 cf. Isaiah 23. 12: even if the Sidonians go to Kittim they will have no rest. Katzenstein 262f 
envisages Ba'al of Tyre as master of a 22 state confederation including the Cypriots: but see 
below, n.66. 

23 Masson / Sznycer 1972: 77f; Teixidor 1975: 126; Lipinski 1983 & 1992: 63; Herniary 1987. 

24 If Parpola 1970: 186 were right in finding "Ionians" (ia-(u)-na-aja) in Nimrud Letter XII = 
ND 2715 = Saggs 1955: 127, where Saggs saw people of Iasubu (ia-s[u-b]a-aia), a region 
NE of Babylon (RLA 5.27 1), and if we identified those Ionians as Cypriots, then we would 
have Cypriots in a document which also relates to trade policies; indeed we would have the 
King ordering groups of Ionians (Cypriots) to be settled in Kaspuna, an important fortress 
in north Phoenicia, opposite Cyprus (cf. Sapin 1989: 29) - piquant given that some have 
thought KaSpuna was fortified to resist "Ionian" incursions (Katzenstein 1973: 237). But 
there are no certainties here. 

25 Second millenium Babylonia (Millard 1973: 211; Winter 1986: 211); Amarijia letter of 
Akhenaton (1364/47) to King of Alashiya mentioning copper and wood trade; 19th dyn. 
school text; important NK source of copper (Muhly 1982; Leahy 1986); tribute of Alashiya 
to Tudhaliyas IV included copper (Gutterbock 1967)] 

26 ARAB 1.479, 518; ANET 276 (Phoenicia); ARAB 1.476; ANET 275 (Sargara, king of 

27 ARAB 1.605, 610 (kings of seacoast and Euphrates); Winter 1986: 203 (throne-bearers 
delegation from Pat(t)in). 

B. Strategy 


even if only through literary fashion. 28 So to privilege trade as a reason for the 
conquest of Cyprus (cf. Sapin 1989: Assyrian desire to control trade of Byblos, 
Sidon, Tyre and the East Mediterranean around the plaque-tournant of Cyprus) 
must remain merely speculative. 

Bunnens 1983b argues that for a long time the Assyrians only had a sort of 
peripheral interest in Phoenicia compared with the push towards Egypt; and if so 
this certainly in principle left those parts of Levantine Phoenicia closest to 
Cyprus in a backwater. But I doubt that it has much impact on our present 
concerns: Simira was after all already provincialized by Tiglath-Pileser III some 
time around 740 (Sapin 1989: 28), and Byblos seems to have accepted Assyrian 
suzerainty throughout largely with good grace (Elayi 1983: 49). The North 
Phoenician region may have been off to the west of the main Assyrian line of 
approach inland to Damascus and then to the south Levantine coast, but it was not 
necessarily out of Assyrian minds - far from it, in fact, if Levantine interests were 
a side product of the clashes with Urartu and eastern Anatolia (Grayson 1991: 
74). The region still further north around the mouth of the Orontes and the Gulf of 
Alexandretta (which was also a region where Phoenicians could be encountered: 
cf. n.21) was not much less close to Cyprus (persons from which may have been 
settled in Al Mina), attracted Assyrian interest as early as the ninth and early 
eighth century and was subject to neo-Assyrian provincial ization in the time of 
Tiglath-Pileser III (738 BCE: Unqi = Pat[t]in). Similar comments could perhaps 
be applied to Cilicia - again there are ninth century campaigns and Urik, a ruler in 
Cilicia (perhaps to be identified as 'WRK king of DNNYM in the Karatepe texts) 
is a tribute payer in Tiglath-Pileser Ill's reign, 29 as are kings in Tabal, an area 
including Tyana on the plateau beyond Cilicia (Hawkins & Postgate 1988). One 
may also note the implications of the denomination of Cyprus as "the Island of 
Danunians", i.e. of Cilicians - Danuna being the native designation of what 
Akkadian texts called Que (Hawkins 1982: 430; Lipinski 1992: 64). The term can 
hardly be a Phoenician designation of the place, which had so many Phoenicians 
in it, and should perhaps be regarded as an Assyrian one - "the island that comes 
to one's attention when one is dealing with the Danunians". 30 It may be relevant 

28 Moscati 1973: 36, Bunnens 1985: 127, Winter 1986, Walker 1986, Jankowskaya 1969: 
262-5 with fig. 4. Only a few neo-Assyrian items date from after 745 and relate to Urartu 
(the huge booty from the sack of Musasir in 714), NW Iran, Elam and Memphis. In Ezekiel 
27. 13 bronze vessels are associated with Tabal, Mushki and (?Anatolian) "Ionians"; but this 
is strictly from a later period. - Dalley's new text of the Larnaka Stele (cf. n.42) incorpora- 
tes a tantalising reference to "mountain-holes" [hurri KUR-i] = mines in the damaged 
passage which indicates where the stele was to be erected. 

29 ARAB 1.769, 772, 801, 802. More generally see Lemaire 1991b: 271f, 1992;Culican 1991: 
465. It is possible that Que was provincialised as early as Tiglath-Pileser' s reign (Postgate 
1973: 30). Maxwell-Hyslop 1974 (esp. 151-2) justifies the supposition that iron supplies 
were a component in Assyrian interest in Cilicia. (Note that Cilicians and Phoenicians were 
capable of conspiring against Assyria, certainly in the case of Sanduarri and Sidon [ANET 
290, ARAB 2.527] and perhaps in that of Sandasharme and Tyre/Arad [ANET 297; 
Desideri/Jasinkl990: 130].) 

30 Stylianou 1985: 386 holds that la' ("the island") is properly Cyprus, while Iadnana - of 


Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

to the viewpoint from which Assyrians saw Cyprus that when in 676 corvie 
contributions were required simultaneously for Kar Esarhaddon (Sidon) and 
Nineveh "kings of Hatti and the seacoast were deployed on both" but the kings of 
Cyprus - perceived as lying at the extreme end of the route from the Assyrian 
heartland through north Syria to the Mediterranean - contributed only to Nine- 

In the light of claims made about the strategic verities of a later period, one is 
bound to consider the inter-relation of Cyprus and Egypt. Neo-Assyrian interest 
in Egypt seems small in the ninth century, despite north Syrian and Levantine 
campaigning in the reigns of Assurnasirpal II, Shalmaneser III and Adad-Nirari 
III (Grayson 1982: 256, 260f, 272; Hawkins 1982: 388, 390f, 399f), 31 but comes 
early in the renaissance of Neo-Assyrian power started by Tiglath-Pileser III 
who sacked Gaza and pushed to the Brook of Egypt already in 734. In the absence 
of an active independent Egyptian maritime strategy any Cypriot connection will 
have to be along the lines of an Assyrian fear that Egyptian diplomacy could 
mobilize Cypriot military resources against Assyrian hold on Levant (just as 
historians assume that all along, if intermittently, Egyptian rulers are attempting 
to destabilize the Levantine coast) and perhaps an Assyrian desire for use of 
Cypriot military resources in the effecting of direct attack upon the Nile Valley. 
To cash this idea one will need to show that conquest of Cyprus comes either 
soon before a push against Egypt or at least in context of Egyptian pressure in 
Levant. But the conquest in 709 comes long before the undertaking of any actual 
direct invasions of Egypt - invasions which moreover only patchily make use of 
Cypriot resources - and as far as one can see it comes at a time of relatively low 
tension with Egypt. Tiglath-Pileser III pushed to the Brook of Egypt early on; this 
together with the establishment of Idibi'il as "gatekeeper of the borders of Egypt" 
in the latter part of the reign (ARAB 1 .800) may or may not disclose apprehen- 
ZuJu^ bltl ° nS '^ Ut ' ^ from ineffective Egyptian intervention in 720 
n,^fn? y ^Tl° ^ and Perhaps Hosea of Sa ^ria,32 all was apparently 
peaceful until the end of the eighth century. Sargon received gifts from the 

krtr !r J' d T ibed ^ d u ° CUments relatin S t0 Sargon's conquest as a district (nagu) - is a 
nZ raVh PS T C ^ aWay l ° Aegean Greece ' This makes little difference to the 
^^n^o^^^^^ UnkS at later dates cf ' '*** 231 < 8th/7th * 
Tshfos fan ? I *% bUt 5th ° r 4th aCC ° rdin * t0 Dion 1992: 97 > Teixidor 975: 126) 
S 8 1 Kn? *1 X? IT!? TyrC Wa KUtim ' and ° ther material in Dav esne 1985, Lebrun 
andLta^n « ' Ma T BullEpigr ' 1990: 50 ° < no ' 368 >- Particularly interesting, 

the Lt r rth re yennCS1S ° f CyPrUS ' a mCdiCal author cited ^ Aris totle (HA 511b) and 
uLes^n J < harUSpiC y was a Cilician im Po« into Cyprus (Tac./to.2.3). Note also the 
Luwia 1 PT wm* CyPn0t W ° rd f ° r a type 0f C °PP er ore > is a J oan word from late 

zzzsz'szs.zs&v ,n *• -*■ Cin,m <" n "" 6 - 178, 

Swkirls^ at *» ** ° f <*<« Orayson 1982: 26!, 

dis^Lt 5 ;^ 28 ^/ 1 K lT 17 c 1_4 ' EdWardS 1982: 576 > Mitche11 W91 : 338. The latest 
Screen im) * °* &ng S ° ° f Egypt ' t0 whom Hosea a PP ea ^, opts for Piankhy 



B. Strategy 


Egyptian Pharaoh (ARAB 2.18, 55), secured Gaza and opened the sealed har- 
bour, making Assyrians and Egyptians trade together (ARAB 2.55; Tadmor 
1958: 36), and shortly before the Cypriot "conquest" of 709 the usurper Yamani 
of Ashdod had fled to Egypt (712/1 1) and been handed back. 33 It was only after 
the disturbances occasioned by Sargon's ignominious death in battle in Tabal that 
things changed. If we must look for a context for the acquisition of Cyprus we 
must find it elsewhere. 

Some have believed that Yamani of Ashdod (just mentioned) was a Cypriot 
adventurer and, if so, his activities might have drawn attention to the island. But 
the identification is deeply flawed: "Yamani" should not be construed as "Ioni- 
an"; 34 and the reading ia-at-na or ia-ad-na found in place of Yamani in some 
versions (Elayi / Cavaigneaux 1979: 60f; Kapera 1972/3) should be regarded as a 
simple erroneous writing of ia-ma-nU not as a sort of Freudian slip inspired by 
Iadnana and providing constructive evidence that scribes knew the usurper to 
have been Cypriot. Yamani's external contact is with "Hittites" (North Syrians) 
who put him in power in Ashdod. Moreover one should not lightly assume that 
"Ionian" means "Cypriot", a point relevant not only to Yamani but also and more 
importantly to the history of conflict with Ionians represented by (a) the report of 
Qurdi-assur-lamur about what seem to be Ionian military or piratical descents on 
the Phoenician coast (including Samsimuruna in the territory of Sidon) in the 
reign of Tiglath-Pileser (the normal view) or Sargon (Katzenstein 1973: 237), 35 
(b) the possible appearance of Ionians in Sargon's annals for 715 as well- 
established enemies of Que (Cilicia) 36 and (c) the references in various Sargon 
texts to Ionians - as distinct from Cypriots - being "caught out of the sea like 
fish". 37 (b) and (c) surely go together, and all three items may be exclusively 
connected with Greeks in Cilicia. 38 So far as the conquest of Cyprus is concerned, 





ARAB 2.30 (ANET 286), 62-3 (ANET 286), 79, 194-5 (ANET 287); ANET 285, 286. 
Elayi / Cavaigneaux 1979: 60; Brinkmann 1989: 56; Tadmor 1958: 80 n.217; Mitchell 

Nimrud Letter LXIX 3-6 = Iraq 1963: 70f; Brinkmann 1989: 55; Qurdi-assur-lamur was an 
officer based in Phoenicia (perhaps Tyre): Culican 1982: 469; the word for "Ionian" is the 
same unusual writing restored by Parpola in Nimrud Letter XII (cf. n.24). 
Lie 1929: 120-21 1.1 18; cf. ARAB 2.16; Elayi / Cavaigneaux 1979: 74; Braun 1982: 16. 
ARAB 2.80, 92, 99 (lists of conquests in in all of which there are also non-adjacent 
references to Cyprus); and ARAB 2.1 18, ND 3411 = Gadd 1954:200. 
Pace Elayi/Cavaigneaux 1979, Kelly 1992. Desideri/Jasinck 1990 identify them as Greeks 
from Cilica Tracheia, Lemaire 1991b: 272 as would-be colonizers. Neither the warning in 
Numb.24.24 (9th or 8th c: Yon 1987: 359; Heltzer 1988; 5th c: Dion 1992: 92) about ships 
of Kittim afflicting Assyria and Israel nor the statements in Isaiah 23.1, 12 (which have 
more in common with the inter-relation of Lulli and Cyprus) nor the associations and 
juxtapositions of Yavan and Kittim in Genesis 10.4 = I Chron, 1.7 (6th c: Braun; 5th c: 
Dupont Sommer 1974: 80; 5th c. text giving 7th c. conditions: Teixidor 1975: 126) and 
Ezekiel 21 M (c. 600:Heltzer; first quarter 6th c: Lemaire, Lipinski 1978: 79) suffice to 
prove that "Ionians" = Kittim = Cypriots. The Ionians were not, unlike Cyprus, important 
enough to figure in summary conquest lists in ARAB 2.54, 82, 96, 97, 98, 99, 102. This is 
also true of various details relating to Amurru and Hatti known from other texts. In theory 
this could be either because Ionians are subsumed in Cyprus or in Amurru/Hatti. One is far 


Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

a north Levantine / Cilician context certainly seems more likely than an Egyptian 
one when one bears in mind the Cilician campaign of 715, 39 the north Syrian 
connections of Yamani in 7 12, repeated operations in eastern Anatolia in 713-11 
and the actions against Mita of Muski in Cilicia contemporary with the acquisiti- 
on of the island. 40 And even if one admitted that some Cypriots might have been 
involved with "Ionian" activities, it would merely mean that in some measure it 
was Cyprus which drew Assyrian attention to itself in its own right (cf. Kelly 
1992: 12 for whom Cypriot conquest is a pre-emptive strike against the island's 
pirates), not as a pawn in Egyptocentric calculations. 

Moreover a conclusion of this sort is certainly not inconsistent with the texts 
directly connected with the conquest, insofar as they cast any light upon its 
context and explanation (which admittedly is not very far). 41 

(i) The texts on the commemorative stele at Citium (the so-called Larnaka 
stele of 707 BCE), 42 on the Display Inscription (ARAB 2.70) and on Prism D/E 
(vii 25-44 = Gadd 1954: 192) provide a succinct account, saying simply that the 
seven kings of Ya\ fearful at what Sargon was doing in Chaldaea and the Hittite 
land brought gifts of gold, silver and wooden furniture to Babylon and kissed the 
king's feet. 43 Such purportedly spontaneous submission is, of course, a topos (cf. 
Eph'al 1984; 33f) - one which does not encourage belief in a really substantial 
invasion but equally need not preclude the possibility of some direct action. 44 The 
more detailed report in the annals (ARAB 2.44; Lie 1929: 11.457f; Olmstead 
1930/1: 278-9) is in line with this, though it casts no further light upon any inter- 
relation between Cyprus and Hittite events, and might well not have had space to 
do so even if the text survived in less damaged form. Immediately before a 
reference to the seven kings of the island are apparently the remains of three 
names, jsilda, [...]qura, [...]-Assur, of which the last at least seems surprising in a 






more strongly tempted to believe the latter than the former. Rihl 1993: 96 stresses the 
element of raiding (for slaves) in early Greek penetration of the eastern Mediterranean (and 
elsewhere). If her general vision is correct, the "Ionians" of Assyrian records are arguably 
more likely to be new or temporary interlopers than members of the long-established Greek 
population of Cyprus. Burkert 1992: 13 speaks of Euboeans. 
ARAB 2.16; Lie 1929: 118f, Gadd 1954: 179f. See Lemaire 1991b: 272. 
ARAB 2.42-3, 71; ND 2769 = Parpola SAA 1.1 = Saggs 1958: 178f = Postgate 1973: 21f. 
The latter is redated to 718-715 by Lanfranchi 1988: 59f. See Lemaire 1991b: 273. 
The only other possible trace of Cyprus in a Sargon text is the information about Papu (? 
Paphians) at the royal court who eventually caused trouble in N.Assyria: Grayson 1991: 90, 
Lie 1929: 76-8, Streck 1916: 3.802. -The Pap(p)a of ARAB 2.9, 56, 118 are not plausible 
Paphians (cf. Reyes 1994: 56). 

ARAB 2.186 = ANET 284; Nikolaou 1976: 315. A new reading of the text (by S.Dalley) 
appears in Reyes 1994: 5 If. 

Elayi 1986a: 130 claims that the Babylonia/Hittite events which allegedly upset the Cyprio- 
ts happened early in the reign, referring to ARAB 2.2 para.4 (I think - bad printing has 
thrown the footnotes in this article completely awry). This seems a peculiar view when 
there were near-contemporary events in the appropriate areas. 

The topos is applied to Mita of Muski in ARAB 2.43, though military action - roughly 
contemporary with the conquest of Cyprus - has just been reported in 2,42 and is mentioned 
in 2.71. 

B. Strategy 


Cypriot king. 45 Next there is an allusion first to the witholding of gifts and then 
(after a break) to their being brought, after which we are told that an official was 
sent with royal host for the purpose of taking vengeance (a-na tu-ri gi-mil-li-su) 
and that the opposition gave in more or less as soon as it saw or heard of this force 
and of the King's name. Gold, silver, wood-products (the same things as in 2.70, 
186) are brought by the defeated party to Babylon, and the text ends "and [as 
Assyrians (?)] I counted them" - a claim of provincialization which modern 
authorities tend to ignore. 46 Grayson 1991: 90 maintains an extremely low-key 
interpretation of these events, envisaging simply that the Cypriots sent Sargon 
gifts and he sent them a stele; this may be an exaggeration (the pattern of gifts 
given, gifts witheld and vengeance sounds like a more interesting and not entirely 
stereotyped story - and one whose implications are not entirely in conformity 
with the reference to Cypriot non-payment of sibtu which Dalley's new reading 
finds in the text: nn. 42, 49), but it must be conceded that when we find a series of 
texts asserting that the King cut down his foes from Yatnana in the sea as far as 
border of Egypt and the land of Muski we will not assume that "cutting down" 
requires belief in major military operations. 47 




Professor Millard advises me that Assur need not be part of a PN. "It could be part of a 
phrase like bel ade Assur ("bound by treaty to Assur") or la la iknusus ana Assur ("who did 
not submit to Assur"), though the order would be uncommon" (letter, 22.9.92). 
Lipinski 1986b: 379 does envisage an Assyrian provincial governor in Citium. Conditions 
in later eighth c. Que and Bit-Burutas (Postgate 1973: 31) show that provincialization need 
not be disproved by the continued existence of kingdoms (though Lipinski at least adopts an 
intepretation of the seventh c. Cypriot king lists which allows there to be no king in Citium 
in the Assyrian era). But the claim that such a situation arose in Cyprus seems startling. On 
the other hand, although the crucial phrase is partly a restoration, the surviving verb-form 
for "counted them" (amnusunuti) is the one normally encountered in the provincialisation 
formula, not e.g. in the formula about counting people as booty. - The reference to 
vengeance calls for comment. Revenge is a surprisingly uncommon concept in neo-Assyn- 
an royal texts and is normally something either attempted by Assyria's enemies (ARAB 
235, 867) or exacted by the Assyrians on behalf of someone else, characteristically a loyal 
vassal threatened or mistreated by an anti-Assyrian third party (ARAB 2.47, 65, 148; 
Weidner 1941/4: 46 1.20), though in certain general statements (ARAB 2.923 [= Streck 
1916: 178.11], 1000 [= Streck 1916: PI 12.17]) the King can represent his function, under 
the aegis of the gods, as taking of revenge. (Even so in ARAB 2.923 Assurbanipal avenges 
"the kings, my fathers, upon all my foes".) Conceivably, then, in the Cypriot context the 
distinction between giving and witholding of gifts is a distinction between different Cypriot 
groups and the vengeful intervention is on behalf of those who are submissive to Sargon. 
This appears at head of a list of places "cut down" and represents, together with Egypt and 
Mita of Mushki, the western border (ARAB 2.54; cf. 2.82, 96-99 [99 = ANET 284], 102). 
In ARAB 2.80, 92 and 99, which itemize conquests in various orders, Cyprus is followed by 
material relating to southern Mesopotamia and preceded either by Egypt and Gaza (2.80, 
99) or by eastern Anatolian victims (2.92). In the Display Inscription (2.70) Cyprus stands 
between the submission of Dilmun and that of Mita of MuSki; association with Dilmun 
recurs in the definitely non-chronological list in Prism D/E, with the clear intention that the 
two places represent acquisitions at opposite ends of the earth. So far as motivation / 
political context goes, nothing particularly useful can be inferred from any of this. - 
Albenda 1983: 19 n.40 notes that a royal stele such as that at Larnaka would normally invite 


Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

B. Strategy 


(ii) Various texts say that the island was seven days distant 48 and some even 
claim that it was a place of which Sargon's ancestors had never heard the name. 49 
It would be imprudent, of course, to set any great store by these mendacious 
topoi. 50 We cannot safely infer that Cyprus was perceived as seriously discon- 
nected from the Levant or preclude commercial or politico-military motives for 
conquest based upon the existence of connections. But we cannot be sure either 
that there were such motives or that Sargon was not essentially pursuing a goal 
which went beyond the long established natural bounds of Assyrian interest and 
entitled him to special credit as an imperial innovator. Bluntly the way that the 
royal texts speak of the matter simply conceals whatever motives there were 
behind an ideological smokescreen. 

If an Egyptian dimension is hard to establish for the original conquest of 
Cyprus in 709, an alternative would be to postulate a fresh Assyrian intervention 
in Cyprus in the reign of Sennacherib or Esarhaddon much closer to the actual 
Egyptian invasions of 674-664 and to suggest that here at least the strategic 
"rule" had some part to play. More precisely, we could note that (a) between the 
erection of the Larnaka stele in c.707 and Nineveh corvee service in 677 51 there is 
no positive evidence of Cypriot submissiveness to Assyria; (b) Lulli's flight there 
in 701 (ARAB 2.310; ANET 287, 288) may be a sign of the island's independen- 
ce; (c) the growth in number of vassals from 7 in 709 to 10 in 677 and 667 may be 
a sign of a significant new Assyrian initiative in the island; 52 and (d) Cilicia was 
disturbed or worse through much of same period: Sennacherib's counterblast in 
696, involving (if it did) defeat of Ionians, was not perhaps entirely successful 53 
and the context of the defeat of Sidon and of Sanduarri of Kundu & Sissu in 677 54 

the inference that Sargon visited Cyprus himself. But the texts scarcely permit this. - Oded 

1992 does not comment on the annals account of the conquest of Cyprus, but remarks 

variously that (i) the vengeance (gimillu turru) motif is normally associated with a death 

(139) and that Sargon was particularly fond of justifying war on the ground of the other 

side's renunciation of Assyrianalliance (92). 

Larnaka stele, display inscription, annals, and prism D/E (as cited on p.24); brief references 

to the Kings of la in ARAB 2.80, 92, 99. 

ARAB 2.70, 2.186 (= ANET 284), Prism D/E = Gadd 1954: 192; it is conceivable that one 

of the gaps in the Annals (ARAB 2.44) conceals a similar statement. In Dalley's new 

reading (cf. n.42), ARAB 2.186 says that previous ignorance of Cyprus mean that the 

Cypriots had not payed sibtu - a somewhat obscure tax defined by Postgate 1973: 17 If as an 

exaction on the flocks and herds of private individuals by officials or (? exceptionally) 

governors. The relationship between this and the fragmentary annals narrative isirritatingly 


Gjerstad 1979: 238 suggested that the "seven" kings - like the "seven days" - are also a 


ARAB 2.690, 697; ANET 291; Heidel 1956: 28 iv 54f. 

But this argument becomes specially tricky if "seven" is merely a formulaic number: see n. 

43. - On the names in the vassal lists see recently Lipinski 1992, Masson 1992/3, Neumann 


Hawkins 1982: 426; Desideri/Jasinck 1990: 133f put Azatiwatas and the "independent" 

Karatepe texts between 696 and 677. Contrast Lemaire 1991b: 274 (705-696). 

ABC 83,126; ANET 290, 291; ARAB 2.527-8; Heidel 1956: 12-15, i 38-56. Sanduarri has 

lately been variously located at Cyinda and Issus (Bing 1985 [1994]) and NW of Mersin 

(Desideri & Jasink 1990: 129; Lemaire 1991b: 275) 







may be when Cilicia is finally brought to heel, even though a governor of Que 
does appear in the eponym chronicle for 685 (Culican 1982: 476, Desideri / 
Jasinck 1990: 127). In the light of this the suggestion that Cyprus defected in late 
700s, perhaps after the death of Sargon in Tabal, is clearly not frivolous and we 
are then left to consider when the Assyrians resumed control (as they had done by 
677). There seem to be three possibilities. 

(a) According to a conventional view Sennacherib's campaign against Cilicia 
in 696 involved a (naval) victory over "Ionian" adversaries. 55 If one associated 
these with Cyprus, one could hypothesize that Cyprus slipped back into place as a 
consequence - even if Cilicia did not. The linkage of Ionians and Cyprus is, of 
course, questionable, 56 but even without it we could note the availability of 
Cypriot POWs for service in the Gulf in 694 57 and the eventual death of Lulli in 
the period 699/694 (Elayi 1985b, 1986a) and deduce that something had happe- 
ned in the 690s which changed Cyprus' relationship back to one of submission. 
(It is, however, odd if such a scenario is correct that Lulli's death appears to be 
treated by composers of royal texts as not the result of any direct Assyrian action. 
(They say variously that he met death before the awe-inspiring splendour of the 
Weapon of Assur [ARAB 2.326 = ANET 288] or that he fled to the middle of the 
sea and persished [ARAB 2.239 = ANET 287]. For the phraseology cf. 
Assurbanipal's Annals [ARAB 2.775; Piepkorn 1933: 36 ii 7f] on Taharqa, who 
died in Nubia far away from any direct Assyrian action.) Even in the absence of 
actual invasion of the island one might have expected the royal propagandists to 
claim a connection between the fugitive's demise and e.g. fighting off the 
Cilician or North Syrian coast.) 

(b) A text of Esarhaddon (ARAB 2.710 = Borger 1956: 57, p.86, As BbE 10- 
1 1) gives a list of conquests which, after mentioning Arza, Bazu, Shupria, Tyre 
and Egypt, adds that "all the kings of the midst of the sea from the land of Cyprus 
(and) the land of Ionia to the land of Tarsis bowed at my feet. I received their 
heavy tribute." No other Esarhaddon text specifically claim the (re)conquest of 
these regions (and none mentions "Ionians" at all) and it is hard to know how 
substantive an event is supposed to be involved: compared with other items in the 
list "submitted at my feet" is rather mild talk, so it is probable that no specific 
military action is to be postulated - and it seems unlikely anyway that Esarhad- 
don would have made such action a high priority at the very start of his reign or 
that, if he had done, it would be missing from the record. On the other hand it is 

55 Cilicia: ARAB 2.286. "Ionians": Berossus 680F7, Abydenus 685F5. The naval element is 
absent in Berossus; Katzenstein 1973: 257 is certain that this is correct, for no clear reason. 
Desideri/Jasinck 1990: 155 identify the "Ionians" as coming from Cilicia Tracheia, Lemaire 
1991b: 274 wonders about Soloi. 

56 cf. above in relation to period up to Sennacherib. Cyprus and Ionia are distinguished in 
Esarhaddon' s alabaster tablet (ARAB 2.711: Cyprus, Ionia, Tarsis) and may be in asimilar 
trio of names in a geographical text from reign of Assurbanipal and Shamashshumukin 
(cited in Braun 1982: 19; but "Ionian" is regarded as an uncertain reading by Bnnkmann 
1989: 68). 

57 ARAB 2.319, cf. 329, 356. The reading Yamanai in ARAB 2.319 is incorrect; Bnnkmann 
1989: 51 n.15 gives it as ia-ad-na-na-a> i.e. Cypriots. 




Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

B. Strategy 


perhaps possible that (rather in the manner of Sargon's claims in relation to 709) 
the mere spectacle of Esarhaddon's resumption of activity in the Levant (cf. the 
sack of Arza in 679 and the campaign against Sidon in 677) induced the Cypriots 
to resume submissiveness more or less voluntarily - i.e. in practical terms to say 
yes when Esarhaddon demanded military help against Sidon (which he may have 
done: but see p.29 below) and corvee assistance in Nineveh (which he certainly 


(c) Between the two extremes of 696 (option [a]) and c. 677 (option [b]) lies 
the blank space (at least so far as western events go) of the latter decade and a half 
of Sennacherib's reign. A second Palestinian expedition has on occasion been 
postulated for the period after the sack of Babylon in 689; 58 if such a thing existed 
a reacquiescence in Assyrian suzerainty by the Kings of Cyprus is evidently a 

Of these options (a) does not get us much closer to an Egyptian dimension, 
since it puts the recovery of Cyprus after the Eltekeh campaign and still far 
removed from the eventual Egyptian invasions and gives it a primarily Cilician 
and north Levantine dimension. Options (b) and (c) are another matter. A reco- 
very in the (later) 680s or in 677 might be seen against the background of 
Egyptian pushiness in Levant (cf. Spalinger 1978) and of the consequent resump- 
tion of S.Palestine/Egypt activities which was the prelude to invasions of the Nile 
Valley. 59 

There are grounds for hesitation however. 

(1) In general terms it appears to have been Taharqa, not the Assyrians, who 
was the aggressor. Since there is not the remotest reason to think he had the desire 
or (crucially) the naval capability to capture or otherwise pressure Cyprus into 
becoming a base for attack upon the Levant 60 and since there are no proven cases 
of Cypriot attack (whether independent or not) on Assyrian interests in the 
Levant, there is no cogent reason to see Assyrian acquisition of the island as pre- 
empting such a strategy on Taharqa' s part. 

(2) Assyrian control of Cyprus did not deter Taharqa from aggression in 674 
and there is no evidence of Cypriot resources being used in the Assyrian respon- 
ses to that aggression. So far as the events of 674 itself are concerned this is not 
surprising, since there are no Assyrian sources. But the invasion of 671 is well- 
enough attested to admit of comment and what one observes is that there is no 
explicit hint of the use of ships, that the invaders may have adopted a land- 
approach other than the direct sea-coast one through Pelusium (Epha'al 1984: 
137-42), and that the Assyrians evidently lacked substantial naval force in the 

58 cf. variously Grayson 1991: 11 1 (in favour), Elayi 1985b: 26, Kitchen 1983: 383ff (against). 

59 Arza: ABC 125, ANET 290, Borger 1956: 21, p.33, Klch.A. 16f, 27, p.50, Ep. 7.39f, 57, 
p.86, AsBbE. 3f, 71, p.l 10, frt.B. 14, Heidel 1956: 14 i 57f. Sidon: ABC 83,126, ANET 290 
(Assur barrel), 290 (Prism A = ARAB 2.527-8), 291 (Prism B = ARAB 2.650, Heidel 
1956: 12-15 i 38-56. 

60 Contrast e.g. the explicit recognition of Taharqa* s connection with Ba'al of Tyre: ARAB 
2.556; ANEP 447, Pace Katzenstein 1973: 279 and Spalinger 1974 the fragmentary conclu- 
sion of the Nahr el-Kalb stele (Borger 67, p. 102, Mnn. 34) is dubitable evidence of 
Taharqa' s involvement with the 22 kings. 

associated attack on Tyre. 61 These circumstances make it hard to believe that the 
military capabilities of Cyprus were being exploited. 

(3) In fact the record of such exploitation is thin throughout. 

(i) Deployment of Cypriot ships against Tyre in 709-705 is theoretically 
possible, but entirely speculative. 62 

(ii) In 677 the Sidonian King relied upon the sea but was "caught like a fish" 
(ANET 29 1 , ARAB 2.65 f). In the light of the imposition of corvee work upon the 
Cypriots in the immediate aftermath it may be tempting to think that Esarhaddon 
had mobilized a serious fleet to deal with Sidon and that the Cypriots contributed 
to it. But it is not an inescapable conclusion. Winkling Abdi-Milkutti out of the 
harbour-island of Sidon (cf. Forst 1973, Elayi 1987a) was quite a different matter 
from capturing the island-city of Tyre; and one might feel that the non-deploy- 
ment of Cypriots in the Kar Esarhaddon corvee reflects their non-involvement in 
the campaign. (To find a context for Cypriot naval deployment one might do 
better to look to the contemporary suppression of Abdi-Milkuti's ally Sanduarri - 
ARAB 2.528, ANET 290 - though there is no hint of it in the texts, and Sanduarri 
took refuge in the mountains.) 

(iii) The third invasion of Egypt in 664/3 apparently made no significant use 
of warship, Cypriot or otherwise. 

(iv) The attack on Tyre in 662 did deploy sufficient maritime force to cut off 
Tyre's sea-communications (ARAB 2.779 = ANET 295; ARAB 2.847, 970), but 
the only conceivable reference to Cyprus thereabouts is the statement in ARAB 
2.847 that the surrender of Tyre made the princes of the midst of the sea and the 
kings dwelling in high mountains fear Assurbanipal - which does not sound like 
a way of describing princes whose resources had just helped secure that surren- 

(v) An oracle text from late in Esarhaddon's reign or the reign of Assurbani- 
pal (Knudtzon 1893: 64 = SAA iv: 92) starts by referring to an individual who has 
made a treaty (ade) with Esarhaddon and the crew of a boat accompanying him 
and then a couple of lines later mentions [...Ze]ru-iddina from Cyprus (ia-da-na- 
ni). It would be optimistic, to say the least, to infer anything about Cypriot 
military shipping. 

61 The texts make clear that Esarhaddon was unable to capture the island city (cf. Moscati 
1973: 43; Elayi 1978; Grayson 1991: 126), for which naval superiority would have been 
necessary. Of course the Assyrians may have felt that mounting the invasion of Egypt took 
priority over inflicting total defeat upon Tyre, but if so it shows that, even though Ba'al was 
explicitly seen as an ally of Taharqa, the fact was in Assyrian eyes f>f small pracUcal 
importance. They were not adhering to any strategic principle that assault on Egypt is 
impossible unless all sources of hostility in the Levant have been thoroughly rooted out 

62 Elayi/Cavaigneaux 1979 argue that in the events recorded in Menander ap.Joseph.AJ 9.284, 
if Tyre had only 12 ships, the 60 Phoenician ships ranged with the Assyrians against them 
must come from a wide range of places, and inclusion of Citium would help. But Josepnus 
thought the reference was to a date in Shalmaneser's reign, and the inference is insecure 
anyway, since we have no way of knowing if twelve represented a full Tynan complement. 




Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

(vi) Any subsequent assistance from Gyges to Psammetichus that really 
existed (ARAB 2.784) must have been sea-born and was unimpeded by Assyrian 
naval action (Kelly 1992: 17). 

One is left in fact just with (a) the despatch of Sidonian, Tyrian and Cypriot 
POWs in "Hittite" ships to participate in the campaign against Elam in 694 63 and 
(b) the circumstances of the second Assyrian invasion of Egypt in 667. One can 
say little more about the former, though it is relevant to note that the Gulf fleet of 
694 does not reappear explicitly in subsequent campaigns in the same vicinity 
(Kelly's inference - 1992: 14 - that it continued to exist because Assyrian Kings 
continued to claim suzerainty over Dilmun perhaps begs the question). But the 
events of 667 call for further comment. 

On the point of interest here there are actually two versions. In editions A 
(771) and C (876) 22 kings of the seacoast, of the midst of the sea and of the 
mainland (specified by name in C and including the ten Cypriots) bring gifts, kiss 
AssurbanipaTs feet and join their ships and forces to those of the Assyrians. This 
happens while Assurbanipal is marching towards Egypt and before the decisive 
(land) battle at Memphis. 64 In 90O-01 (Harran) and edition E (Piepkorn), on the 
other hand, after the battle of Memphis, the seizure of Taharqa's war-ships 65 and 
the flight of Taharqa southwards we are told that "they sent me the good tidings 
through a messenger who also reported to me orally. Then I ordered to add to my 
former (battle-)forces (in Egypt) the rabsaq officer, all the governors (and) kings 
of (the region) beyond the river (Euphrates), servants who belong to me, together 
with their forces and their ships, and (also) the kings of Egypt, servants who 
belong to me, together with their forces and their ships, to chase Tirhakah out of 
Egypt and Nubia. They marched towards Thebes, the fortress-town of Tirhakah" 
(ANET translation). Since this latter version appears in what are earlier editions 
of the historical record it is likely to be closer to the truth than what appears in 
editions A-D (cf. Elayi 1983) - versions which perpetrate a major misrepresenta- 
tion of the truth in claiming that the campaign was led by Assurbanipal himself 
rather than by a subordinate. Various comments may be made. 

(1) The proposition that any Cypriot forces were involved at all depends on 
the assumption that the description and listing of Levantine and Cypriot vassals 
in A and C is a reliable indication of what the author of E meant by "kings of Ebir 
Nan". This might be questioned on (at least) two counts, (i) It seems surprising 
that the author of E would not have taken the trouble to pick out the Cypriots if he 




Above n.57. Note the interesting reflection of this sort of thing in Diod.2.16.6 (Semiramis' 
use of Cypriots, Phoenicians and Syrians on ships); and contrast the Cypriots* non-appea- 
rance in a somewhat similar context in 650 (ABL 795 + Dietrich 1969/70: 1800. where 

l ts-TaT? t0 PrCpare ShipS ° n the Tigris * (The Sidonians ^ Nineveh under Sargon [ABL 
1 /5 - SAA 1.153] are not apparently of maritime function.) Some hundred years later we 

199*- Sr" CarpenterS (wUh Anatolian names ) «■ Mesopotamian naval yards (Joannes 

In editions B and D, otherwise close to A and C, the east Mediterranean vassals are entirely 

elip qarabi - a hybrid specially invented term: Epha'al 1989: 198. 

B. Strategy 


had believed them to be relevant, instead of contenting himself with a term which 
without further qualification would be likely to suggest that he had only the syro- 
levantine mainland in mind. But is not (I suppose) demonstrably impossible, (ii) 
The in extenso list in edition C is in some sense derived from that in Esarhaddon's 
account of the Nineveh corvee of 676. These are the only occasions in the neo- 
Assyrian texts in which such lists occur; and all the Cypriot names and all but two 
of the mainland ones are the same in both lists. Historians have long wondered 
whether the Cypriot section at least is purely tralatician and represents what was 
by 667 once again a false claim to sovereignty; indeed in some hands the text has 
(paradoxically) become a proof of loss of Assyrian control. This view has been 
less fashionable in recent times; but the fact that the mainland kings of Arvad and 
Beth-Amon in 667 are different from those in 676 does not necessarily prove that 
the Cypriot part of the list is reliable; and the fact that the list turns up precisely in 
a context of textual and conceivably factual manipulation is not particularly 
encouraging. 66 On the other hand since we cannot be independently sure of the 
degree of that manipulation we cannot be certain that we are entitled to scep- 

(2) If any Cypriot forces were involved their role was limited to participation 
in what was actually an ineffectual follow-up to the capture of the .Delta and of 
Memphis. Moreover the narrative in edition E seems to imply that the East 
Mediterranean forces were not even mobilized for the Egyptian campaign until 
after (and indeed some time after) the capture of Memphis - this was certainly 
necessarily true of the Egyptian ships mentioned in the same context - and the 
fact that some later editions present things otherwise cannot prove that it was not 
so. Assurbanipal could perfectly well initially have planned a purely terrestrial 
response to Taharqa's invasion of north Egypt (just as his predecessor had carried 
out a purely terrestrial conquest in 671) and only changed plans when Taharqa 
had inconsiderately escaped with the loss of his own warships. On the other hand 
the text's formulation might also be consistent with a scenario in which the East 
Mediterranean vassals had been in attendance all along, but had performed no 
significant military function until the king ordered them in pursuit of his fugitive 
adversary. A third possibility is that their mobilization was ordered at the same 
time as that of the land forces which carried out the invasion but was only 
completed later with the result that they arrived on the scene at the apex of the 
delta after the decisive battle had been fought. However one looks at it, though, it 
seems clear that Cypriot and Levantine ships were not considered by the Assyri- 
ans to be of any particular importance. Successful invasion of Egypt was not 
dependent upon them. 

(3) Later versions do introduce a reference to the East Mediterranean vassals 
earlier in the story, but they also suppress reference to their naval pursuit of 
Taharqa. The purpose of this double alteration is debatable, (i) At least part of it 

66 The alleged rebellious association between the 22 kings and Taharqa in 671 might provide a 
context for loss of Cyprus (Esarhaddon apparently had no ships with which the capture Tyre 
in 671): but cf. n.60. 


Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

B. Strategy 


was certainly not of crucial importance, since editions B and D, though deleting 
the East Mediterranean vassals in its account of what followed the battle of 
Memphis do not bother to insert them in the earlier one (compare the conclusion 
of [3] above); and the change was certainly not made to enable some alternative 
military function or service to be attributed to the East Mediterranean vassals. No 
such function is described and the decisive defeat of Taharqa remains clearly 
something achieved in a land-battle. In fact the function of the notice (especially 
in the in extenso listing in edition C) is largely to give general expression to 
Assurbanipal's power in the eastern Mediterranean, (ii) The new version invol- 
ved the vassals bringing gifts to and kissing the feet of Assurbanipal, so what is 
said about them is certainly caught up in the imposture of Assurbanipal's perso- 
nal command of the expedition. But although ARAB 2.901 by contrast explicitly 
asserts that Assurbanipal received a messenger's reports of the capture of Mem- 
phis before he ordered the ships of Ebir Nari and those of the Assyrian puppet 
rulers of the Delta to make for Thebes, this could have been reconciled with the 
later claim that Assurbanipal was leading the campaign in person by a relatively 
simple deletion: no wholesale relocation of East Mediterranean vassals was 
required (iii) On the premiss that the East Mediterranean ships only actually 
entered into the picture after the battle of Memphis the later version would be a 
positive misrepresentation, and one which might be regarded as an attempt to 
erase what was arguably the logistical or strategic error of not having ships to 
hand for an immediate pursuit of Taharqa. Since there is uncertainty about the 
premiss (cf. 3) the conclusion is unreliable. But it may in any case be relevant that 
by the date of composition of the later editions it was clear that the "capture' of 
Thebes in 677 (and indeed the whole settlement of Egypt on that occasion) had 
been less than effective (a new invasion being needed in 674); any direction of 
attention towards naval incursions into upper Egypt may therefore have seemed 
best avoided. 67 

Whatever the precise truth about all of this, it seems clear that the campaign 
(which is the latest certainly dated reference to Cyprus in neo-Assyrian sources ) 
provides no evidence for the strategic or tactical indispensability of the Cypnots. 

(iii) The post-Assyrian context 

The latter part of the Neo-Assyrian era sees a realisation of the fears of Esarhad- 
don and Assurbanipal in the shape of some Egyptian penetration into the Levant ~ 
significant pointers in this respect are Psammetichus Vs capture of Ashdod 

67 In A and B/D the statement that Taharqa abandoned Memphis and fled to Thebes is 
followed by the statement that Assurbanipal "conquered that city". Opinions differ as to 
whether this refers to Thebes (ANET 294 (A); Streck 1916: (A)) or Memphis (Piepkorn 
1933 (B, D)). - It is unfortunate that the Egyptian scene on BM 124928 (Brunner 1952), 
which includes no ships, lacks a proper context. ' 

68 The reference in a geographical text from Assurbanipal's reign - cf. Brinkmann 1989: 58 - 
is of unknown date, though it doubtless has a greater statistical chance of being post-667. 

(Herodotus 2.157) before 616 (? in 635: Tadmor 1966: 102), his pretensions to 
control in Lebanon evinced by his Year 52 stela (612), the claim of Nee ho to 
Sidon supposedly demonstrated by a fragmentary basalt table with royal figure 
and cartouche 69 and the eventual fruitless cooperation between Egypt and the 
Assyrians against neo-Babylonian expansion in 616-605 (ABC 91, 95, 96, 98, 
99). Carchemish and its aftermath largely destroyed Egyptian control in Asia, 70 
but Necho managed to fight off threat to Egypt itself in 601/00 and the assertion 
in II Kings 24.7 that upon the death of Jehoiakin the King of Egypt did not come 
out of his land since the King of Babylon had stripped him of all his possessions 
from the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates is a little overstated since Psammeti- 
chus II was showing the Egyptian flag again in Palestine in 592 or 591 in areas 
which were (still?) in Egyptian control. 71 

In all of this there is no hint of naval activity. 72 Which is rather odd given that 
it is Necho who is credited with turning Egypt into a maritime power by building 
a trireme fleet for use in Red Sea and Mediterranean theatres - a revolutionary 
piece of technological up-grading, especially for a state whose ancestral naval 
concerns had been almost entirely Nilotic (cf. Van t'Dack & Hauben 1978: 68) 
and whose history had apparently included no example of sea-fighting since the 
conflict with the Sea Peoples in c.l 170 BCE. The fact that a "commander of royal 
war ships in the Mediterranean" is already attested under Psammetichus II (for 
the first time since Ramesside texts) makes it likely that the association with 
Necho is sound, but no native source confirms it 73 and no source reports when the 
trireme programme started. One's natural inclination would be to place it early in 
Necho' s reign, not least because it can be said that Egyptian fleet-building was 
dependent on supplies of 's-wood from the Lebanon (cf. Elayi 1988a: 16) and it is 
in his early years that Necho can most readily be imagined as in a position to 
secure these supplies, though Arcari 1989 would have it that Necho was at work 
destabilizing the Lebanon in 598. Perhaps however this is an over-restrictive line 
of argument. After all, given the absolute lack of ship building timber of any kind 
in the Nile valley, the maintenance (never mind creation) of any sort of Egyptian 
fleet through the later Saite era must show either that sources of timber were more 
varied or that access to timber sources was not as dependent upon stable political 
suzerainty as one might imagine. Certainly to regard the creation of a Mediterra- 
nean war-fleet as a response to loss of the Levant to the neo-Babylonian offensive 





Griffith 1894: 90; Yoyotte 1960: 382; Leclant 1967: 17; Arcari 1989: 165. 
Berossus (680 F 8 [135]) oddly saw the process as one in which Nebuchadnezzar suppres- 
sed a rebellious satrap of Egypt, Coele Syria and Palestine - a perspective apparently 
assuming that Egyptian control of the area was almost too unnatural to admit. 
P.Rylands ix 14,16f; Lloyd 1988: 168; Freedy & Redford 1970: 476, 479; Spalinger 1977: 
238f; 1978; Yoyotte 1951: 140; Sauneron/Yoyotte 1952: 135. It is disputed how deliberate- 
ly anti-Assyrian this was, 

Herodotus 2.159 actually distinguished the Magdolus and Gaza operations (609 or 601; and 
601) from use of the fleet. 

The only Egyptian material about (military) ships of Necho date, that from Elephantine, is 
about Nile shipping (Kaiser et al. 1975: 83f; Jansen-Winkeln 1989: 31). 



Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

B. Strategy 


would help explain the failure of such a fleet to have any impact upon that 
offensive. (The only alternative would seem to be to assume that the Egyptians 
already had their fleet but were strategically incompetent in their use of it when 
faced with an enemy who was not using a fleet of his own). 74 

Talk of other possible ship-timber sources makes one think of Cyprus, of 
course, but Cyprus is also elusive at this era. Jeremiah's reference (2.10) to 
Kittimin c.630 or 620 shows no more than that these people (who do not have to 
be Cypriots anyway) were familiar enough to Jews to serve as a paradigm of alien 
religious culture and (to go slightly forward) Ezekiel's prophecy (26.15) that the 
fall of Tyre to Nebuchadnezzar will shake the coasts and islands (which latter will 
include Cyprus, if only as part of the text's picture of the trading world of the 
Tyrians) is fairly unilluminating. The same is true of references in Isaiah's elegy 
for Tyre and Sidon (23. 1,12), should this be assigned to a sixth century redaction 
(Lemaire 1987: 54; Lipinski 1978: *79) rather than dated to the neo-Assyrian era. 
The Kittim in transit at Arad around 600 are positively tantalizing. Again they 
might only be generically "Greeks", which is what historians are apt to assume, 
but even if Heltzer 1988 is right to come out and call them Cypriot (essentially for 
no more reason than an assumptiont at all OT Kittim are from the island) it is hard 
to know what to make of it given that (a) we do not know that they were not mere 
mercenaries and (b) we do not know whether their local ally /employer was 
Jewish or Egyptian. Still they are actors of some sort in the politico-military 
drama, and in the anti-Babylonian camp at that, so if they are Cypriots at all they 
serve as a reminder that the island was not hermetically sealed from develop- 
ments in the Levant. It is also worth stressing that the distinctive general associa- 
tion of the Saite dynasty with the greco-anatolian world (going right back to 
Psammetichus I's alliance with Gyges and his use of greco-carian mercenaries) 
means that Egypt in the neo-Baby Ionian era naturally had a perspective on the 
outside world which included Cyprus and was not just focussed upon the Le- 
vant. 75 

The first specific evidence of Egyptian naval warfare in the Mediterranean 
comes in the reign of Apries. Herodotus (2.161) reports that Apries captured 
Sidon and fought a naval battle with "the Tyrian" (king?). This is a controversial 
event on two counts. First, should it be dated before the Babylonian sack of 
Jerusalem in 587-586 in the same general context as Egyptian operations in 
support of Judah 76 or during the last few years of Apries' rule after the Babyloni- 

an capture of Tyre in 573. 77 Second, how much attention should we pay to 
Diodorus' version (1.68) in which the pharaoh's naval victory is against a 
combined Tyrian, Sidonian and Cypriot fleet? And should we, in accepting this, 
follow those historians who take it that Apries was the architect of Egyptian 
suzerainty over the island? The latter step does seem excessive in the light of 
Herodotus' blunt (if very succinctly reported) perception that Amasis was the 
man who reduced Cyprus to tributary status and the notable absence of a clear 
statement of the opposite even in Diodorus. 78 But the mere involvement of 
Cypriots in the conflict is another matter. 

This may not be the only occasion on which Diodorus differs from Herodotus 
in introducing Cyprus. 1.68.6 is normally read as saying that Amasis made 
dedications in Cypriot sanctuaries (though South 1987 denies the necessity of this 
reading) whereas Herodotus, despite interest in other Amasis dedications in 
Greek cities and despite his knowledge of Egyptian suzerainty over the island, 
says nothing of Cyprus. 79 A casual extension of the range of dedications to 
include Cyprus is, of course, very easy to imagine (in the light of political 
suzerainty) and this may make one wary of Diodorus' authority here - especially 
since the view could be taken that Amasis' ostentatious dedicatory gestures were 
meant precisely for those places he did not control. The motive for falsely 
intruding Cyprus into the Apries campaign story is less clear. 

Whoever Apries' adversaries were, they are states inimical to Egyptian 
aspirations in the Levant. Before 586 they would be states also presumably 
hostile to Babylon, whereas after 574/3 they would effectively be acting in the 
Babylonian interest, but (since there is no evidence of Babylonian suzerainty 
over Cyprus at any date) Cypriot involvement at whichever date would have to 
result from what one might call private Phoenician-Cypriot links. These may 
have been more in the nature of mercenary service than political alliance or for 
that matter colonial dependence (and we should certainly hardly have to suppose 
that anything like all Cypriot cities were involved) but in any case one might 
assume that they had been activated because of the peculiar and novel threat 
represented by the advent of an Egyptian war fleet into east Mediterranean 
politics. At any rate, the general background to the events is, of course, the 
Egypto-Babylonian clash over the Levant (either a consequence of Psammetichus 
IPs Palestinian activities and a prelude to the Babylonian assault on Tyre or a 
follow-up to that assault); the suggestion in Spalinger 1978: 20,24 - altering his 
position as stated in Spalinger 1977: 232^4 - that Apries and the Phoenicians 




cf. Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre in 26f, esp. 26. 7, 10-11, where the Babylonian 
attackers, though metaphorically compared with waves of the sea, are actually ascribed only 
land-forces (horses, chariots, "a great army") and - concomitantly - took thirteen years to 
capture the city (Philostratus ap. Joseph. AJ 10.228; Joseph. Ap.1.156). 
See for example ARAB 2.785, Streck 1916: 22 ii 114 (Gyges); Hdt.2.178, Strab.17.1.18 
(Naucratis); Hdt.2.30, 147f, Polyaen.7.3, ML 7, Ampolo & Bresciani 1988, material on 
Arad in text immediately above and on h3w nbwtf in n.82 (Greek/Carian mercenaries). 
Freedy & Redford 1970. ANET 322 = KAI 193 (Lachish ostr.III); allegedly reflected in 
Jeremiah 37.5-11, Ezekiel 17.11-21, 29-31. See Freedy & Redford I.e., Mitchell 1991: 
403, James 1991: 718 




Lloyd 1983: 339, 1988: 171; Leahy 1988. Either way Ezek. 28.20 (against Sidon) is 

presumably connected. 

Diodorus is actually careful not to say that Cyprus was captured; the contrast between his 

claim that Sidon and other Phoenicians were made submissive and his silence about Cyprus 

is pointed. 

Herodotus' knowledge of Cyprus is not extensive (under twenty passages in the whole 

Histories), but it is even less extensive about e.g. Rhodes, where he nonetheless records an 

Amasis dedication (2.182, 3.47). 


Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

B. Strategy 


were actually fighting about possession of Cyprus for commercial reasons seems 
gratuitous - though, of course, if the objects of commercial interest could be 
strategic commodoties like timber, the two views are not entirely distinct. 80 But 
we should stress two things. First, the Cypriot element is in the first instance 
tangential to the calculations of the major protagonists. The Cypriots thrust 
themselves into the argument, so that it is at least possible that subsequent 
Egyptian rule in the island is so to speak self-inflicted. The Cypriots may have 
been responding to their perception of the logic of the situation, but their percep- 
tion could have been wrong. Second, even if the chronological horizon is the 
early 580s then it has still taken some two decades for the logic of Egypto- 
Babylonian conflict over the Levant to suck Cyprus in; with a date in the late 570s 
we are talking of over three decades. And if we reject Diodorus' testimony we 
have at the end of Apries' reign still to reach a moment at which a Cypriot 
component is properly attested. Things barely improve even then. 

Apries' fall from power began with the revolt of Amasis in 571; by early 570 
Amasis had been formally crowned, though it required two further battles in the 
course of the year before Apries fled to take refuge with Nebuchadnezzar, whose 
armies may have moved as far as the eastern Delta at around this time. 81 In the 
second battle of 570 Apries was supported by Greek soldiers (H3w nbw) on kbnt- 
ships (a term used for triremes) "from the island (iw)" and Edel 1978 suggested 
that these were Cypriots, further implicitly claiming that Amasis attacked the 
island in the course of 570 in response to Cypriot support of his adversary. 82 A 
more recent treatment of the subject (Leahy 1988) rejects this claim with argu- 
ments of uncertain weight. In the absence of contemporary parallel material it is 
hard to tell whether it is more odd that the Elephantine stela should refer to 
Cyprus as "the island" than that it should so denominate the Memphis fortress/ 
palace (which is Leahy's view); and judgements about the likelihood of Apries or 
Amasis having time/opportunity to go to Cyprus in the course of 570 would really 
depend on a better conception of the precise circumstances of the civil war than 
we can claim to have. (In particular, the argument that if Apries had left Egypt for 
Cyprus to get reinforcements he would have terminally ceded any claims to be 
king and texts in Thebes could not have gone on treating him as such begs a lot of 
questions, especially since by October 570 - when BM 10113 uses Apries' name 
- Apries had returned and fought again for his throne. Moreover the ostentatious- 
ly proper burial of Apries by his successor shows that there were sentiments 

80 It is, of course, true that Cypriots may have been moved not only by connections with main 
Phoenician cities but by the impingement of the Babylonians upon north Phoenicia in the 
shape of the destruction of Tell Sukas dated c. 588 by Riis and the hiatus at Al Mina during 
the whole neo-Babylonian era (end of level V [600/580] until 530/20:cf. Perreault 1986: 
146, 148) 

81 Wiseman 1966: 155; and the historical background of the Coptic Cambyses Romance, 
which appears to presuppose a NB attack on Apries, as distinct from the one on Amasis in 

82 On h3w nbwt see Vercoutter 1949 (esp. texts LXX-LXXI and XCVIII-C), Vandersleyen 
1971: 154f, id. LdA ii s.v. Haunebu, Uphill 1967: 410f. Vandersleyen* s denial that the term 
ever meant "Greek" seems forced. 

favourable to Apries which required to be assuaged.) Still the more that Cyprus 
was already as of 571/0 part of the Egyptian political horizon, the easier such 
things would be to understand, and the strongest ground for doubting Edel's view 
remains the complete absence of any cogent reason to ascribe acquisition of 
Cyprus to Apries. To say this is no doubt to privilege the firm assertion of a Greek 
historian who could nonetheless be wrong over the unclear assertion of the 
Egyptian composer of the Elephantine stela who certainly knew what he meant 
by "island" and was probably perfectly accurate in what he said about it. But it is 
hard to see what else we can do for the moment. 

The situation is different when we come to the amphibious Babylonian 
invasion of 567 which attempted inter alia to restore Apries to the throne. The 
Babylonian source (CCK 94f = BM 33041 = ANET 308) describes Amasis as 
having mobilized troops from Putuiaman (i.e. Libya/Cyrene), "the lands far off in 
the midst of the sea" and Egypt. The phrase in inverted commas is not necesarily 
in apposition to Putuiaman (cf. Brinkmann 1989: 60 n.35) and might perfectly 
well be a reference to Cyprus. Indeed one's only immediate reservation about 
such an identification would be to wonder whether the chronicler could not have 
used a more precise proper name for the island if Cyprus alone was in question. 
But to say that is to say implicitly that the phrase might embrace several islands 
including Cyprus; and to speak of a precise proper name is to beg the question of 
whether a sixth century Babylonian chronicler actually had a proper name for the 
island available to him. So there is nothing inherently impossible about a referen- 
ce to Cyprus, and the fact that Amasis is on record as the man who reduced 
Cyprus to tributary status certainly entitles us to formulate a scenario in which he 
achieved this in the first couple of years of his reign or maybe achieved a more 
equal relationship (like that with Cyrene?) which formed the basis for a later 
assertion of greater power. (We could even say that the Salamis-Cyrene link 
attested in the later sixth century - below p.40 - was simply an inheritance from 
Saite political arrangements.) Either way the acquisition of Cyprus would con- 
form to the strategic principles for the defense of Egypt also exemplified in 
Ptolemaic history - though Amasis' use of it in 567 does not seem to have 
involved its deployment as a base for behind the line threat in the Levant and no 
later "use" of it of any sort is on record, in the absence of subsequent Neo- 
Babylonian threats to Egypt itself, an absence which we are liberty to ascribe 
precisely to Egyptian control of Cyprus. 

But this scenario, though possible, is not ineluctable. Reyes 1994: 7 If, 77 
indeed displays an inclination to deconstruct an Egyptian domination altogether - 
an extreme position for which he produces rather shaky grounds. (The discussion 
at 77 in particular seems unduly neglectful of the issue of tribute in Herodotus' 
formulation.) More to the point, the "lands far off in the sea" of the Babylonian 
Chronicle could be a reference to Amasis' greco-carian forces (perhaps even 
including some Cypriots - but not officially) and the date of Cypriot conquest 
could quite well be later. The motivation might still be the same (indeed after 
570-567 the pharaoh was bound in all contexts to think in terms of possible 
Babylonian threats to Egypt), but we could also at least add another dimension in 



Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

C. Persian Evaluation and Assimilation 


the Babylonian interest in Cilicia (perhaps acquired between 585 and 562, if not 
inherited immediately upon the fall of the neo-Assyrian empire: cf. Lemaire 
1991b: 275) which spread into Rough Cilicia in the early 550s and included some 
use of naval forces, for example by Neriglissar against "the city of Pitusu in the 
middle of the sea" alias the island of Piytussa (cf. Desideri & Jasink 1990: 
166f). 83 There is no reason why the perspective in which Cyprus is "approached" 
from Cilicia, already detected in our discussion of neo-Assyrian conditions 
(above p.21), should not remain relevant; and the fact that available source 
material tends to privilege Egypt and the Levant should not be permitted excessi- 
ve influence. A further observation - that if Wallinga 1991 is right to postulate a 
major permanent naval military installation in Persian Cilicia the Cilician per- 
spective will not have been lacking then either - brings us back to the subject of 
Cyprus' position in the Achaemenid era. 


The matters discussed in Sections A and B have highlighted the issue of the 
strategic role of Cyprus; more generally they pose for the Achaemenid historian 
the question of the island's value to its Persian overlords and invite us to think 
about the attitude of Persians to Cyprus and Cypriots to Persia. The remainder of 
this chapter will deal with various aspects of these questions. 

How important a part of their state did Achaemenid kings actually think 
Cyprus? There are few direct sources. It is at least doubtful that the presence of 
Cypnot coins in the Persepolis foundation deposit represents a distinctive state- 
ment on the subject. (On one view - Calmeyer 1985 - it merely shows that the 
Cypriots, unlike other western coin-producers, were loyal at the time.) Herodotus 
represents the Milesian Aristagoras seeking to persuade Artaphernes of the 
merits of conquering Euboea by comparing its size with Cyprus (5.31). One's 
first reaction is to object that Euboea is not the same size as Cyprus and did not 
contain as many substantial city-states. On that basis one might then argue that 
the comparison is actually deliberately misleading and that Herodotus' attributi- 
on of it to Aristagoras is a reflection of the historian's conviction that the Persians 
considered Cyprus a specially valuable possession. Part of this argument is on 
reflection vulnerable: the difference in size of the two islands may not have been 
absolutely obvious on fifth century maps - and a conventional list of Mediterra- 
nean islands in descending order of magnitude (one already extant by the mid 
fourth century) certainly put Euboea and Cyprus in adjacent positions. 84 But it 

83 «fjS? UemS arC: (a) j ° int Bab y lonian - Cilicia n mediation between Lydia and Media in 

oLw U4) ' (b) Nebuchadnezzar 's undated operations in Hume and Piriddu (Lambert 
1965), (c) Nenghssar's campaign against Piriddu revolt (ABC 103f, CCK 39, 74, 86, with 
<«7/™ em ?! re & Lozmacheur 1987 )> (d) Nabonidus' Cilician operations in 556/5 and 
555/4 (ABC 105, Beaulieu 1989: 20 #1), (e) texts on Cilician iron from reigns of Nabopo- 
lassar and Nabonidus (Joannes 1991: 263f). 

84 Ps.-ScyL praef., 114, Alexis fr.268 = 270 KA, Aristotle mundo 393a 13, Strab. 14.2.10. 

does seem hard to deny that an island containing Salamis, Citium, Amathus, 
Paphos, Marium and Soloi ought to have seemed more impressive than one 
whose largest entities were Chalcis, Eretria, Hestiaea and Geraestus. So the initial 
inference may after all hold good. But whether Herodotus' conviction was based 
on anything more than his knowledge of Cypriot contributions to the Persian war- 
fleet is another matter. 

Leaving aside any strategic considerations Cyprus had two things to offer 
Persia, tribute and military forces. (Xenophon Cyropaedia 7.4.2 summarizes 
Cyprus' situations as rule by local kings combined with liability to dasmos and 
military service.) About the former we have no special information: Herodotus' 
tribute-list (3.89ff) does not even profess to provide a figure for Cyprus alone. A 
fragment of Ctesias (688F30) refers to the phoros of Evagoras (possibly tempora- 
rily withheld), confirming if this were needed that it was the individual kingdoms 
which owed tribute separately to the Great King. There is no relevant documen- 
tary evidence: the donations of royal land in the Idalion Tablet (ICS 217) to be 
held "without tax" refer to local taxes payable to the King and the same will be 
true of the notations on the base of certain jars from Amathus (Petit 1988: 488f), 
if indeed it is right to connect these with taxation at all. (A fourth century pithos 
from Vouni marked Imlk may also belong here.) Such local taxation was pre- 
sumably part of the means by which the king amassed the wherewithal to pay his 
Persian tribute, but that is the most that we can say; and I fear that I am not 
convinced that Helzer 1991a adds much that is reliable and novel. 

As for military resources, Cypriot ships appear as a significant element in 
Persian fleets on various occasions. (An indirect reflection of the Cypriots' status 
among components of Achaemenid naval power is perhaps provided by the 
unknown, presumably fifth century, mythistorian who insinuated successive 
Cypriot, Phoenician and Egyptian thalassocracies into the early history of east 
Mediterranean sea-power: Forrest 1969). It is notable that such attestations 
become rare after the Cypriot contribution to the fleet defeated by Cimon's forces 
at Salamis in 450; indeed thereafter we only specifically hear of Cypriot ships in 
Persian service in the fleet which fought at Cnidus in 394 - a fleet in whose 
creation Evagoras had played a specially prominent role perhaps for reasons of 
his own. There is a danger that this prolonged silence is merely an accident: the 
sources on the fourth century are simply less good about explaining the constitu- 
tion of Persian naval forces, and it is possible that the rather vague remarks in 
Isocrates 3.3 If about Nicocles' assistance to the King refer to naval service. 
Cypriot warships were certainly not lacking (cf. the fourth century shipsheds at 
Citium and the evidence of the Alexander historians). But it may be significant 
that the Persian fleets mentioned by Thucydides, Diodorus, Plutarch and others in 
connection with the 440 Samian revolt and the supposed mobilization in 41 1 are 
repeatedly designated simply as Phoenician or on one occasion Phoenician and 
Cilician. 85 

85 Shipsheds: Chron. 1988: 827f, 1989: 825f, 1990: 965, 1991: 812f, 1994: 672f. There was 
increased "militarization" in Byblos and elsewhere in later fifth century (Elayi 1984b, 
1992), which might be relevant. - I am unsure what to make of Theophrastus' statement 
Wst.Plant.5.8A) about kings (Cypriot or Persian?) preferring not to cut trees. 


Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

Cyprus never had a satrap under the Achaemenids (any more than in the 
various early provincial divisions of the Successor period: Arrian 156 FF 1, 9), 
neither one imposed from outside (i.e. an Iranian) nor a native king elevated to 
that role. (The man who authorizes travel by Cypriots - cf . below p.43 - does not 
have to be a satrap of Cyprus.) In this respect it differs from some other dynastic 
areas of the empire, for example Cilicia, Lycia, Caria, which were eventually 
embraced within the satrapal system - or it does so unless one accepts Petit's 
view (1988) that description of non-Persian dynasts such as Mausollus as satraps 
is improper and cannot have been official. The safest comparison is with the 
Levantine Phoenician cities, since nobody is ever said to have been satrap of 
Phoenicia or the like either. That comparison shows, of course, that the lack of 
satrapal office does not in itself mean that Cyprus was thought unimportant. 
Indeed it principally reflects the realization that the two areas with their long 
established city-states had a satisfactorily defined internal organisation and one 
which, being monarchic, was not conceptually alien. Evagoras' success in 381/0 
in negotiating a treaty under which he submitted to Artaxerxes "as a king to a 
king" (most likely a reinstatement of the status quo ante) strikingly symbolizes 
this bias towards monarchy. A cynical interpreter might, of course, observe that 
Artaxerxes would only have conceded so much to a rebel if he thought him 
essentially harmless, at least after the ravages inflicted in the fighting. Certainly 
the situation is one which, given other considerations such as the insularity of 
Cyprus, is consistent with a certain attitude of detachment. 

At some point in (roughly) the last third of the sixth century Arcesilas III of 
Cyrene and his mother Pheretime were forced by stasis to flee into exile. He went 
to Samos, she to the court of King Euelthon of Salamis, both in search of military 
forces to help effect their restoration. Euelthon refused, but Arcesilas was more 
tortunate and after his return he despatched some captured political enemies to 
Euelthon to be disposed of (though they escaped when a storm carried them to 
Cnidus) - a move which shows that Euelthon's refusal of military support was 
not counted by Arcesilas or intended by Eulethon as a sign of political hostility, 
ine date of these events is controversial, and it is sometimes argued that they 
must predate Arcesilas' submission to Persia in 525, otherwise he would have 
appealed to Persia for help. This, of course, is what his mother did later when she 
caned in the Egyptian satrap Aryandes to avenge Arcesilas' murder, an episode 
which Herodotus synchronizes with the Scythian expedition, around a decade 
later than the conquest of Egypt. To me it seems clear that Arcesilas' Samian 
contact must post-date the removal of Polycrates (otherwise I find it hard to 
believe that the story would come to us unadorned with Polycrates' name), and 
Uiis _ effectively dates it at or after the end of the 520s. Euelthon and Arcesilas are 
both (nominally at least) Persian subjects and the episode may serve to warn us 
that such dynasts, rightly or wrongly, did not necessarily suppose that Persian 
suzerainty lost them the right to behave as quasi-free agents when defending their 
own internal interests as rulers of their states. Of course the precise circumstances 

^ il n,!. enC0Uraged 5*! appr ° aCh - We mi S ht for exam P le P^tulate that Arcesi- 
las expulsion occurred during the period of disturbed Persian control of Egypt 

C. Persian Evaluation and Assimilation 


from late 522 to some time in 520 (itself an aspect of wider chaos engendered by 
Darius' usurpation). Persian assistance would then hardly be available, Arcesilas 
would have to look to Greek states which (perhaps) had a history of friendship 
with Cyrene, and their responses might naturally be unaffected either way by 
consideration of their obligations to an empire under serious threat of disintegra- 
tion. But it would be unwise to rely excessively on this scenario, both because the 
dating is quite speculative and because it is open to question how widely the 
threat of disintegration was appreciated in the Greek world. The behaviour of 
Arcesilas, Euelthon and the rulers of Samos may have been regarded by them as 
being in any case consistent with their submission to the Persian King. Euelthon's 
response to Pheretime - that an army was no sort of gift to give to a woman - may 
look like an excuse, but it was accepted as being in good faith and should not be 
assumed to be a cover for the Cypriot's feeling that as the King's subject he was 
not allowed to interfere in Cyrenean affairs. 

The same sort of detachment is exemplified by Evagoras' decision early in 
his reign to facilitate Athenian access to certain desirable commodities (corn; 
timber; bronze). Scholars not unnaturally are tempted to speculate about his 
"real" motives. But given Athens' circumstances at the time it is hard to see that 
he can have entertained very serious hopes (at least in the short term) of a 
substantial quid pro quo in the shape of e.g. help in conquering Cyprus or 
rebelling against Persia. If anything it is marginally more plausible that the 
principal political undercurrent was an Athenian desire for co-operation with a 
pro-Persian power (cf. Zournatzi 1993). But the real determinants were probably 
different and simpler. The second half of the fifth century had seen a revival in 
Athenian-Levantine trade (at least as measured by finds of Athenian pottery). 
This certainly impinged upon Cyprus, which lay on the route east, and Athenians 
or Athens-based traders were probably quite commonplace in the island. (Andoci- 
des gravitated towards Cyprus in 415 - and ended up in prison in Citium - 
because it was a familiar,if somewhat out-of-the-way place; the husband of a 
woman at Thesmophoriazousae 446 is imagined as dying in Cyprus not - as is 
sometimes claimed: Collombier 1975: 108 - because he had been involved in 
civil conflict in Salamis but because it was the sort of foreign place where 
Athenian citizens went in the ordinary course of events.) When Athens came to 
have a pressing need for certain strategic materials, it is hardly surprising that 
Athenians should have looked for them in Cyprus or that Evagoras was prepared 
to smooth the way for their provision - viewing the matter simply as a business 
transaction. The fact that Athens was at war with Persia (albeit intermittently 
interested in negotiating a deal) was something to be regarded as quite irrelevant. 
Athens' subsequent award of citizenship to Evagoras 86 shows indeed that his help 
was very important and may, as one component, reflect the existence of a 
strongly philhellenic tone in Evagoras' intercourse with individual representati- 
ves of the city: it perhaps suited Evagoras to be seen as helping his quasi-mother 
city. But we cannot infer that he was consciously embarking on a political agenda 

86 IGi 3 113,Dem.l2.10,Isoc.9.54,Paus.l.3.2. 


Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

C. Persian Evaluation and Assimilation 


which was hostile to Persia: for him it was none of Persia's business, and there is 
no evidence that Darius II saw the matter differently. 

In the neo-Assyrian period the kings of Cyprus could, despite their insular 
position, be included amongst those of Ebir Nari or Abarnahara, i.e. the land 
across the River Euphrates 87 - logically enough, since in Assyrian terms both 
Cyprus and Tyre or Arados (cities on islands immediately adjacent to the coast) 
could be described as "in the midst of the sea", and Tyre and Arados would 
naturally be reckoned by anyone as part of the continent. The concept of Ebir 
Nari continued in use in the Persian period and indeed designated an area which 
had a satrap, though until comparatively late that satrap was also satrap of 
Babylonia and thus a rather distant functionary (Stolper 1989). It is not crystal 
clear how, for example, the kings of Phoenicia stood administratively in relation 
to this transeuphratene satrapy; but one assumes that in general geo-political 
terms Phoenicia was regarded as in Ebir Nari. Is the same true of Cyprus? One 
will naturally suppose so, and there is an outside chance that an unpublished 
Persepolis Fortification text, L 1-2409, refers to Cypriot workers "from (As)syria", 
i.e. from Athura = Ebir Nari (Hinz & Koch 1987: 643; but cf. n.89). But this 
throws up a problem of identity. It is likely that the Persians essentially perceived 
Ebir Nari as a region inhabited by speakers of NW Semitic languages (Aramaic, 
Hebrew and Phoenician) and the iconography of the constituents of the empire on 
Persian Royal Monuments duly represents the area by figures in N.Syrian (Ara- 
maic) dress (Calmeyer 1990). The dilemma is this: Cyprus certainly has no 
independent existence in these Lists of Peoples, 88 so is it (i) regarded as part of 
Ebir Nari (in which case tacitly as entirely Phoenician), (ii) regarded as contai- 
ning both Semites who are part of Ebir Nari (alias Athura) and Greeks who are 
covered by the category Yauna also found in the Lists, or (iii) simply ignored? 
The fact that whatever source lies behind Herodotus' tribute list counts Cyprus 
along with Syria-Palestine in the fifth nomos does not prove the first possibility 
since anything else (except perhaps assigning Cyprus a whole nomos to itself) 
would have been geographically unreasonable. But in the light of certain indicati- 
ons that entry into the empire was accompanied by greater exposure to Phoenici- 
an cultural signals (more on this later) and of the fact that the shifting descriptions 
of categories of Ionians in the lists can all be understood in relation to western 
Anatolia, the eastern Aegean and Thrace I do think that there may be something 
to be said for it. Against it may have to be set the tantalising reference to "the 
famous city Samine of the land Kupru" and "the Iamuniammu [? Ionians]" in 
Sachs & Hunger 1988 no. - 440 (redated to the fourth century by van Speck 1993: 



cf. the Nineveh corvt texts: Borger 1956 27, p.60, ep. 21.54-82, ANET 291, ARAB 2.690 
(though sometimes we find "coasts and islands"). 

This assumes that the view that tyaiy drayaha are or include Cyprus (e.g. Herrenschmidt 
1976: 53, Wallinga 1991) is not accepted: DB arguably recognised the existence of "people 
in the sea" who should be islanders and, judging by DPe, were "Ionians", but these can be 
sought in the Aegean. Wallinga's argument that Cilicia contained the empire'schief naval 
base does not require postulation of a singleadministrative entity embracing Cilicia, Cyprus 
and the Levant or indentification of this area with tyaiy drayaha. 

96). Whatever the decision, of course, no particular conclusion can be inferred 
about the Persian valuation of Cyprus as a possession. And the same probably 
goes for the fact that - unless the kupirriyas who appear as kurtas in PT 49.5, 
54.5, 55.5 (all 466/5 BCE), Ll-1612: 5 and Ll-2409 (both 498/7 BCE) and as 
travellers to Persepolis under authorization from Dattana in Q-1888 (495/4 BCE) 
are Cypriots (rather than the "copperers" which Cameron took them to be) 89 - 
Cyprus does not appear as such either in other Persian or near-eastern sources. 
(There are regrettably no Cypriots in the newly revealed maritime tax document 
from Egypt: Yardeni 1994.) 

Cyprus did on several occasions rebel against the central authority of the 
Great King. We have already spoken about one, in some respects rather special 
case, that of King Evagoras. The behaviour of both sides in the other cases is 
worth a few moments' consideration. 

The rebellions tend to be in some measure prompted by outsiders. The revolt 
of 498 arose from a conjunction of the separatist inclinations of the brother of the 
king of Salamis and the incitement of emissaries from the rebels in Ionia. A 
century and a half later another rebellion is said by Diodorus to have been a case 
of imitating the already rebellious Egyptians and Phoenicians (16.42). There was 
also a revolt in 478, though it is not always so categorised. The conquest of 
Cyprus ascribed to regent Pausanias by Thucydides (1.94) and Diodorus (1 1.44) 
and achieved with astonishing rapidity (since later within the same campaigning 
season the Hellenic League forces were busy besieging Byzantium) must be seen 
in these terms: the arrival of Pausanias' fleet on top of the secession of western 
Anatolian Greeks from Xerxes in 479/8 provoked a revolt in a fashion parallel to 
498, perhaps all the more encouraged by the fact that many Cypriots had been 
participant specatators of the Persian defeats at Salamis and Mycale. (Stylianou 
1985 notes that Penthylus of Paphos and Philaon of Salamis were among the 
prisoners taken in Greece and may have had some influence on subsequent events 
in Cyprus; but the inference from Aeschylus Persians 89 If that Salamis, Paphos 
and Soloi were the ringleaders of revolt in 478 seems quite unwarranted.) 

On the other hand, Cypriots did not always rebel when, one might say, 
chances offered themselves. Cimon's expedition in c.450 does not seem to have 
provoked enthusiastic support in all quarters: according to Thucydides 1.112 
there were Cypriots fighting in the Persian fleet at Salamis, and the dream-omen 
incorporated into the account of the campaign preserved in Plutarch's Cimon 
makes a point of the fact that Persian armies contain Greek elements. There is 
also no clear sign of a Cypriot component to the various disturbances around the 
end of the 360s which parts of the historical tradition sewed together into a Great 
Satraps' Revolt. Near-contemporary sources liked to note the parallel between 
the fates of Nicocles and Strato of Sidon, who in their heyday engaged in a 


The suggestion comes from Lewis (unpublished) and Koch 1994. Lewis' notes quote a 
suggestion from M.W.Stolper that Dattana (who also appears in PF 1527 and LI" 343 ) 
might be Tattenai. - Hinz & Koch 1987 deal with kuppirriyaip differently again, takl ^ 1 '" 
PT 49, Ll-1012, Ll-2409 as a derivative from the toponym KaupirriS (a place NW of 
Persepolis) and in PT 54,55 as the elamite version of kufriya, translated as "pitch-workers . 









Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

C. Persian Evaluation and Assimilation 


competition of conspicuous consumption but then both met a violent death after 
being put in chains (Nicocles) or falling into poverty (Strato). 90 Strato died (at the 
hands of his wife) after making an alliance with the Egyptians; but it does not 
follow that Nicocles' death (at an unknown date before 354/3: cf. Isocrates 15.67) 
was similarly the result of anti-Persian action. We simply do not know enough 
about the internal affairs of the Salaminian court to rule out another episode of 
internal instability of the sort which had claimed Evagoras' life in 374/3. Of 
course, if scepticism turns out not to be justified, this is likely to be another 
occasion where external influence played a part. 

Moreover revolts when they happened did not maintain solidarity or persist. 
The operations of Phocion and Idrieus in the 340s rapidly confined themselves 
only to Salamis, the other cities having apparently given in more or less immedia- 
tely. Successful resistance in 498 was compromised by a switch of sides on the 
part of Curium and of an important element in Salamis (Hdt. 5.113), though 
admittedly Paphos and Soloi held out and had to be reduced by siege, and there 
are additional signs of destruction which might date to 498/7 at Tamassos (the 
Aphrodite temple) and Marion (the Peristeries sanctuary and elsewhere). 91 

There is, we may observe in passing, a curiously tolerant or gentlemanly 
attitude in Salamis about the issue of defection in 498, which may (or may not) be 
consistent with Stylianou's analysis in terms of "progressives" and "moderates". 
Onesilos, the ring-leader, did not raise the standard of rebellion by killing his 
brother, King Gorgos, who opposed defection, he merely in effect exiled him. 
And when Onesilos was in turn killed in battle, his corpse, exposed to contumely 
in the city of Amathus, was then declared to have been the subject of a miraculous 
infestation by bees with the result that he was turned into a hero - an arrangement 
which, I would like to think, was prompted by pressure from Gorgos, now 
restored as King of Salamis and disinclined to look on while the Amathusians 
treated his brother as a common criminal. The circumstances of the disputes 
between Pnytagoras and Evagoras II in the mid-fourth century are less clearly 
reported; but here too the original ousting of Evagoras had not been accompanied 
by his death. 

What happened in 478 is less clear. The Persians tended to take measures to 
contain disturbances in Cyprus fairly rapidly, making use of relatively local 
resources either from Cilicia/Levant (498, 450) or Caria (390 [abortive], 340s) - 
a tendency which no doubt discloses a fair degree of concern about stability in the 
island. In 478, within 9 months or so of Plataea and Mycale, their capacity for 

90 Theop. 115F114,Anaxim.72F18;cf.Max.Tyr.l4.2, 

91 Tamassos: Stylianou 1985; 53/427; Buchholz 1985: 247. Marion: Chroniques 1990: 982f, 
1991: 829, 1992: 819. Herodotus' failure to mention the Paphos siege seems odd in view of 
the massive archaeological remains of the siege ramp (e.g. Maier 1984) - even if as 
Professor Maier suggests the ramp could have been constructed in as little as six weeks - 
but he was at the mercy of his sources, and the amount of detail on Soloi - which had 
Athenian connections - suggests their priorities were different (for archaeological evidence 
cf. Stylianou I.e.). Lavelle 1984 detects in the apparently casual annotation that Curium was 
an Argive colony a subtext criticizing Argive neutrality in 480. 

rapid response may have been somewhat impaired. Some historians (Meiggs 
1972: 477; Stylianou 1985: 441f) affirm that the (Greek) Cypriots entered the 
Delian League in 478 and remained there until after 449. This seems unlikely, 
since by the time of the Eurymedon campaign in the early-middle 460s Cypriot 
ships were again serving in the Persian fleet. Order had clearly been restored by 
then, but how, quickly or easily is obscure. The complete silence of the sources 
probably does not prove that it was achieved without any notable difficulty; for 
that silence is arguably overwhelmingly due to obsessive interest in the later 
developments of Pausanias' career and their repercussions in the Aegean. Moreo- 
ver we know from the Idalion tablet (ICS 217) that at some time in the first half of 
the fifth century the "Medes" cooperated with Citium in a war against Idalion; a 
date immediately after 478 would be consistent with relevant archaeological and 
numismatic evidence (which, as normally stated, places ICS 217 prior to a 
destruction level on the Idalion west acropolis in the second part of CA IIB - i.e. 
on the Swedish Expedition's chronological system the very end of 600/475 - and 
demonstrates the absorption of the city into the Citian kingdom after 450) 92 and 
would allow us to see in the "Medes" the Persian troops forces drafted in from 
outside which we should expect by analogy with other occasions. (Contrast e.g. 
Petit 1991a: 163 who places the events in ICS 217 in 498/7.) But how long a time 
elapsed before the island was entirely pacified? The general view is that the 
particular siege mentioned in the Idalion tablet was actually unsuccessful and this 
may seem to leave open the possibility of a lengthy period before trouble was 
entirely over. There are, however, objections to this inference. On the one hand, if 
the west acropolis destruction-level of late CA IIB represents the eventual Persi- 
an capture, it cannot in any case be very long after 478 (it is already arguably 
pushing the evidence very hard to make it that late at all - unless, of course, the 
limits of Gjerstad's site-periodization are substantially altered). On the other 
hand, the view that ICS 217 precedes Persian repossession of Idalion assumes 
that, since Stasikypros was still king at the date of composition of the tablet he 
had not yet been defeated by the Persians, and this in turn makes certain assump- 
tions about Persian treatment of rebels which might be false - though, to be sure, 
concluding that they are false will pose interesting questions about the subse- 
quent destruction level (see further p.78). 

92 West Acropolis: SCE 4.2.473 n,5 with Petit 1991a: 163. The single report of more recent 
American investigations on the W.Acropolis (Chronique 1988: 831) describes the destructi- 
on level as that of the Citian capture in "450". It is unclear whether this is being proposed as 
a radical re-dating on strictly archaeological grounds - though to have described things in 
1 that fashion for any other reason (e.g. that 450 is, on numismatic evidence, the horizon i ot 
Citian absorption of Idalion) would be a stunningly improper petitio principii. Senff 1993: 
74 n.630 questions the connection between W.Acropolis destruction and Citian conquest on 
the ground that the Apollo sanctuary (in a more exposed position) survived the period I intact 
(as for that matter did the East Acropolis "Aphrodite" sanctuary); and Maier 1994: 31U 
quotes new investigations by M.Hadjicosti as indicating that the acropolis was not so much 
destroyed as gradually abandoned. (There is a classical zone artisanale, and fourth ' c^ury 
syllabary/Phoenician bilingual ostraca have been found. See BCH 1992: 8l6f, 1994: 6771.J 
The archaeological situation seems increasingly to be too much in need of clarification tor it 
to cast any cogent light upon the historical one. 




Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

C. Persian Evaluation and Assimilation 


Certainly, there do seem to be signs of Persian complaisance towards trouble- 
some Cypriot kings. We have already contemplated the case of Evagoras' suc- 
cessful retention of his throne, and there is no clear countervailing evidence 


1. After 498 the Persians were prepared to trust Cypriots military forces 
within 4 years, deploying them against the Ionians at Lade. But it is hard to prove 
that this is the result of wholesale, or any, dynasty changes, (a) Kagan 1 994 draws 
attention to a number of coin issues (unassignable with any certainty to any 
particular city) which cease at the turn of the sixth and fifth centuries. There are 
two possible inferences. One is that a number of mints ceased to operate after the 
Ionian Revolt. But, if so, it leaves one in the dark about the stability or otherwise 
of Cypriot dynasties - for a new dynasty in a given city might just as well issue 
coins as its displaced predecessor. The other inference is that several mints 
changed their types radically enough to conceal continuity of operation. This 
would, of course, be more consonant with the hypothesis of dynastic change. At 
the moment, however, it is unclear how one should choose between the two 
inferences, (b) Paphos suffered and succumbed to siege but there seems to be no 
actual interruption in coining. Kagan 1994 does note some unusual details in 
what may be immediately post-Ionian Revolt issues - including the appearance 
of a Phoenician aleph - but it is doubtful how much one should make of this. 
Regal names in the post-siege period seem to be consistently Greek - though this 
does not prove there was not some change of personnel. We simply do not 
know. 93 (c) At Lapethos the two earliest preserved king-names are Demonicus 
and Sidqmelek. They come in that order, though not necessarily in immediate 
succesion. It is naturally tempting to postulate Greek and Phoenician dynasties, 
the change from one to another being a result of the Ionian Revolt. But all 
Lapethos coins are inscribed in Phoenician until the Alexander era, irrespective 
of the kings' names, and when one considers Sasmas son of Doxandros at Marion 
(both reigned in the period after 498) or Eiromos son of Euelthon at Salamis 
(some time before 498), it seems clear that Sidqemelek and Demonikos do not 
have to represent different families. On the other hand Kagan 1994: 48 reckons 
that "the changes in type... first to that used by Sidqmelek and then to the coins of 
Andr- and Demonicus II is quite extraordinary from a numismatic perpective and 
indicative of some sort of change". The strongest element is perhaps the decided- 
ly unhellenic appearance of some aspects of Sidqmelek' s coin-reverses (rather 
than the various overlapping shifts of type in the century from c.500 to c.400) - 
but Sidqmelek does not have to be a direct successor to the events of 498. 

2. A change from Greek to Phoenician rulers certainly did happen in Salamis 
after the mid-century, but, although Isocrates does speak of the Phoenician 
usurper barbarizing the city and making the island subject to the Great King, he 
avoids claiming that the episode represented Persian reaction to Salaminian 

93 Other signals about post-497 Paphos are conflicting. Numbers of tombs are held to indicate 
a prosperous fifth century polity, but the city-walls were not rebuilt until c.350 and the 
Canadian Palaepaphos survey indicates some economic setback in the first half of the fifth 
century (Sorensen: communcation at April 1994 Transeuphratene conference). 

rebellion. It is, of course, tempting to locate the shift in the aftermath of Cimon's 
expedition. But as we have already seen it is far from clear how much rebellion 
happened on that occasion, and despite the differences between Thucydides and 
other sources there is no suggestion that Salamis actually came into Athenian 
hands - though this may, of course, be very much due to the presence of a Persian 
garrison. 94 Moreover, it is not obvious that Phoenician usurpation could not be 
dated before 450; and Stylianou 1 985 has floated the idea that the original usurper 
may even have been a Phoenician relative-by-marriage of the Teucrid clan - it is 
certainly clear that there is a contrast between him and the outsider (whether 
Tyrian or Citian) Abdemon from whom Evagoras had to flee. 

3. The rebellion in the 340s was not apparently followed by wholesale 
displacement of Cypriot kings. Even Pnytagoras, who held out after others had 
submitted, eventually made willing submission to the King and continued as ruler 
of Salamis. (There had been a period in the meanwhile in which the King could be 
said to be "helping" Pnytagoras - to the disadvantage of his brother, predecessor 
and rival Evagoras II. The circumstances are not clear, but Evagoras is said to 
have been falsely accused [diablethentos] though he later repelled the charges 
and perhaps became a king in Phoenicia.) If Pnytagoras survived all the other 
kings must surely have done so. 

All things considered, the history of Cypriot revolts seems to disclose a rather 
laid-back attitude by all parties. Cypriot cities seem prone to jump on band- 
waggons and then jump off them again and the Persians, though concerned to 
suppress disorder, seem inclined to regard this behaviour tolerantly. I have 
sometimes wondered whether those late fourth century kings who, after siding 
with Ptolemy in or around 321, also entered into communication with Antigonus, 
eventually provoking Ptolemy into ruthless suppression of all the monarchies, 
were not trading on traditional assumptions about the latitude extended to their 
predecessors by the Achaemenids and appalled and affronted when the new men 
of the region proved to play according to different and more brutal rules. 

The "hands off attitude exemplified by the lack of a Cypriot satrap is 
reflected in other ways. Persian garrisons are only spoken of in Cyprus on two 
occasions, 478 (when Diodorus says they existed in all cities and Nepos Pausa- 
nias 2.1 speaks of them in the plural) and 450 (when Diodorus envisages one in 
Salamis but not apparently elsewhere). They clearly did not represent a military 
occupation able to stem rebellion or resist Athenian aggression (at least on the 
earlier occasion) and can hardly be regarded as a significant element of Persian 
rule. 95 

94 Stylianou 1985 thinks Diodorus inverted Salamis and Citium and should have said that 
Salamis was captured; but the expedient does not resolve all the sources' inconsistencies, 
and so is of doubtful value. , 

95 Closest to an epigraphically attested garrison commander is Param (son of Gerastart 1) the 
commandant of Lapethos in Larnax 3 (Snyczer 1988: 59), a text conceivably of pre-33U 
date. But Param (perhaps a relative of the later rb'rs in Larnax 2) is scarcely a Pre- 
appointed official. There is no reason to extend the period of office of Gerastart II, the rb rs 
in Larnax 2, before 330. (The office is variously understood by Seibert 1976, Parmentier 
1987, Teixidor 1988.) None of the administrative officials known at Citium (cf. n.152) can 
be related specifically to Persian rule, though two are called PRSY. 


Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

C. Persian Evaluation and Assimilation 


A survey of archaeological and onomastic evidence points in a similar 
direction: at least, the sort of Iranian settlement which characterized Anatolia was 
evidently not practised in Cyprus, for there is only a very small Iranian element in 
the onomastic heritage of the island (six names shared amongst eight individuals 
can be cited) 96 and no importation of Iranian deities at all. 97 The "cist" tombs 
which have been thought diagnostic of Iranian military / official presence in the 
Levant (Stern 1982, Tuplin 1987: 204f) are absent. At least six neo-Baby Ionian 
seals have been found in Cyprus, 98 but there is (as yet) no sign of genuine Persian 
seal-stones there 99 and only isolated examples of court-style pyramid seals or 
greco-persian gems with Cypriot provenance (Boardman 1970a: no.168; 1970b: 
fig.891). Yet (at least in the archaic period) Cyprus seems to have been not 
without importance in the field of gem-cutting and in the spread of the art-form to 
the Greek world (Boardman 1968, 1989b: 44f), so the silence suggests that there 
were no customers for such cultural hybrids. 100 

More generally the sort of "greco-persian" monuments which are a feature of 
Achaemenid Anatolia and may be deemed an indirect sign of the presence of 
high-status Persians seem to be largely missing in Cyprus: it is symbolic that 
Borchhardt 1968 included the Amathus and Golgoi sarcophagi in a list of epicho- 
ric monuments drawn up in the context of greco-persian art, but then found 
nothing to say about them. 101 Some comment might have been in order at least on 
the Golgoi hunt-scene: hunting is a characteristic icon of "greco-persian" art and 

96 1. zo-pu-ro-se (ICS 128 [Marion]; necropolis text, dated 6th-4th cc). 2. Orontas, s. of 
Orontas (Hadjiioannou 1980: no. 195; imperial period). 3. Agathokles Makronos Perses 
(Nikolaou 1984 A4; ptolemaic). 4-5. Two PRSY in the genealogy of 'RS of Citium (Guzzo 
Amadasi 1978, KAI 34 = Kition III B45), a dynasty of holders of the title RB SRS M, of 
which first PRSY is "founder". PRSY should be regarded as Persaios, Bonnet 1990: 145. 6. 
PRSY (CIS 1.75 = Kition III B20 [text lost save for copy by Pococke].). 7. Persaeus of 
Citium (stoic philosopher). 8. Satrapas (ICS 3 [Nea Paphos], as interpreted by Mitford 
1960: If; but Masson ICS p.394 is unimpressed). 9. Satrapas ho arkhos (Masson 1988:63-8; 
Chronique 1989: 793), dedicator of a text at Tala (north Paphian territory) under King 
Nicocles. He might be a religious minister of Nicocles. (Text resembles type of ICS 2,3 
from Apollo Hylates at Paphos) 10. Mi-ti-ri-wo-se (ICS 149 [amphora graffito]), interpre- 
ted by Munro 1891:. 309 as genitive of Mithris (Mithriwos). "Peu plausible" according to 
Masson ad loc. But Lecoq 1974: 43 n.58 has a similar view; and cf. Mayrhofer 1973: 
8.1 167. 11. Onesandros Artabatou honours S.Sulpicius Pancles Veranianus (Mitford 1950, 
5(b); second half first c. CE). 

97 Despite occasional deployment of Bes in Achaemenid contexts (Graziani 1978) there is no 
specific cause to see Achaemenid overtones in that figure's Cypriot manifestations. 

98 cf. ICS pl.LX 1-2, Boardman 1970a: 21f, Buchanan & Moorey 1988: no.564; Chronique 
1988: 804. 

99 The sealing from a presumed archive at Amathus shows a figure of Kore: Petit 1992: 485 
#11. - The Cypriots used diphtherai (ICS 143; Bauraih 1992: 410) - which makes an 
entirely accidental parallel with a famous Persian archive, published in Driver 1957. 

100 There are about ten Cypriot provenances for classical gems in Boardman 1970b, proportio- 
nally fewer provenances than for archaic. The reputation of Cypriot gems is noted in 
Theoph.^ /ap.4.5, 6.35, Athen.689B, Plin.AW.37.6. 

101 Elayi 1988c regards them as essentially Phoenician, albeit with a Greek artistic imprint - 
but mainland Phoenician analogues are all later. 

Elayi 1987a: 69 regards hunt-scenes on Levantine Phoenician architectural sarco- 
phagi as showing that Phoenician princes resembled neo-Assyrian and Persian 
monarchs in ascribing the activity an ideological importance. Perhaps the same 
does not apply at Golgoi: there is little other evidence about Cypriot hunting 102 
and the Golgoi hunt appears to be a rather mundane affair. But I suspect 
Borchhardt' s silence about monuments which also include such characteristic 
greco-persian subjects as banquets and processions is partly an implicit stylistic 
judgment and partly due to the absence of any recognisably "Iranian" figure. In 
one sense, of course, if there is no Persian figure there cannot be greco-persian 
art. But (i) in Elayi' s view the two sarcophagi (like such things in Levantine 
Phoenicia) are essentially unhellenic objects, (ii) they are presumably princely, if 
not royal, objects, as such a thing would have been in mainland Phoenicia and 
(iii) the issue is not solely one of art: if given icons, representing given activities 
and appearing on a given class of object (relief-carved funerary monuments), are 
significant when they involve men in Persian dress, how are we to be sure that 
they cease to be significant when there are no Iranian clothes but everything else 
stays the same? It may be that we can dispense with the postulated Iranian patron 
(what we have seen so far would encourage that anyway) but architectural 
sarcophagoi are a rare novelty in Achaemenid Cyprus and we can legitimately 
assume that those who ordered or designed the decoration, even if non-Iranian, 
had something in mind. Nor can we entirely forget that, if there is no Persian 
dress, there is at least a parasol on the Amathus sarcophagus. 

Material evidence will not, of course, necessarily tell the whole story about 
all forms of Persian impact; and the stories that it does tell may reveal various 
reflections of the ruling power. Mainland Phoenicia saw its fair share of Persian 
functionaries and armies over the two hundred years or so it was part of the 
empire, but there is not that much sign of it on or in the ground (cf. n. 134) - even 
when there was in principle something to show: consider, for example, the fact 
that a large Levantine Persian royal estate - something representing considerable 
Persian intrusion/interference - postulated in the region of the R.Eleutheros 
leaves no material traces at all (Sapin 1989, 1990). There is, of course, no 
particular reason to postulate such things in Cyprus. Even the slight onomastic 
and historical evidence available in the Eleutheros region is lacking in Cyprus. 
The nearest approach is the gloss ganos: hupo de ton Kyprion paradeisos (EM 
s.v.). The glossographers must have had some reason to use the Iranian word 
rather than just e.g. kepos to explain the Semitic original and so-called paradeisoi 
occur overwhelmingly within the bounds of Persian imperial occupation, so it is 
tempting to infer some Persian impact upon the Cypriot landscape. An estate and 
a paradeisos are not, however, the same thing (though the latter may be one 
element within the former) and a paradeisos does not have to be more than a 
well-ordered orchard. The nature and extent of the impact therefore remain 
arguable, as does the extent of direct Persian involvement. If there could be a 

102 Stags were hunted around Curium (AeLA/A 11.7); and there is a unique fragmentary 
statuette from Kythrea of a horseman hunting a lion (Crouwel & Tatton-Brown 1991: 


UnfwrtHit MGnefwn 

BJbllothsft <te» 



Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

C. Persian Evaluation and Assimilation 


paradeisos in early fourth century Rhegium (Theophrastus HP 4.5.6), then there 
could doubtless be purely Cypriot imitation ones in Cyprus. 103 Still even such a 
phenomenon is scarcely without significance, and the principle that impact need 
not be in the form of direct Iranian military or administrative settlement is 
important. It is, for example, just as interesting to speculate, if inconclusively, 
about what the special association of Curium and Perseus meant to Curians and 
the extent to which they promoted it in the light of Greek etymological con- 
nections between Persia and the rescuer of Andromeda. 104 Borchhardt claims that 
the Perseus figures on the Limyra mausoleum say something about Pericles' 
attitude to Persia. Does the inclusion of Perseus on one end of the Golgoi 
Sarcophagus deserve similar consideration? 105 (A world in which the persuasive 
assimilation of Persians and Greek myth postulated in Gauer 1990 is possible is 
certainly one in which a Perseus figure cannot fail to have overtones.) In a 
slightly similar way, one could wonder what were the overtones in classical 
Cyprus of the amazonomachies which in Greece could connote the conflict with 

Persia. 106 

Nor in any case does the archaeological evidence from the Persian period 
entirely lack a Persian imprint. Some of this may be related to the attitudes of 
Cypriot rulers to their own position as subject-kings within an Achaemenid 
empire, though other items do not immediately lend themselves to that use. 

1. Saddle blankets, (i) The Amathus Sarcophagus horse riders have an (una- 
dorned) saddle cloth tied with two straps across horse's chest, which resembles 
those shown on certain Persian period monuments in Lycia. 107 (ii) A fair number 
of free standing terracotta and stone horse-and-rider figures show plain or (more 
often) serrated-edged saddle-cloths. 108 Serrated cloths are also encountered on 

103 Other evidence about Cypriot gardens: (i) ICS 217 (Idalion) and 316 (Salamis) mention 
kapoL (ICS 217 describes a garden "which Diweithemis used as (a) alwos". The force of 
this is elusive, especially given disagreements about translation of alwos - "verger" (Mas- 
son), "Saatland" (Egetmeyer) - but pace Masson it hardly follows that in Cyprus kepos 
meant simply "plot of land" or even "unworked plot of land".)- (») Sacred installations: 
Hierokepeia (near Paphos) and evidence of temple gardens at Citium (Chronique 1973: 
648f [11th c.]) and Amathus (Chronique 1976: 916, Aupert 1986: 376). See also Wright 

104 Note (i) cult of Perseutes (LKour. 25 [4th c. BCE], 65 and 66 [3rd c. BCE]), (ii) description 
of city as "city of Perseus" (LKour. 89 [second/third c. CE] or "blood of Perseus" (LKour. 
104 [second c. CE]). The city was claimed as Argive foundation (Hdt.5.1 13; Strabo 14.6.3). 

105 Myres 1914: 1292 shows Perseus and the Gorgon watched over by Athena on one of the 
shields of a three-bodied Geryon. There are vague echoes of Achaemenid royal iconogra- 
phy in the pose of Heracles on one of the other shields (kneeling to shoot a centaur) and the 
hero-versus-lion combat on Geryon's skirt. But no doubt this is coincidental; and Myres 
dates the object to the first half of the 6th c. 

106 Soloi: Dikaios 1953: 1 1 1 (mid 4th c), Vermeule 1976: fig.II.3, Fugger sarcophagus. 

107 Xanthus B31 1 and Xanthus G new fragment (tied with a single strap); FdX ii 52f, pl.37-39; 
Mellinck 1971: 253, pl.54, fig.22; Mellink 1974: 545f. The sarcophagus' parasols similarly 
have Lycian analogues: Mellinck 1971: 248, 1976: 27f. 

108 Plain; Young & Young 1955: nos. St 307, 212, 230, 303, 313 (from votive deposit, dated 
"550"). Serrated: ibid, nos.1480 (p.216, p.25), 1145 (dated "625/575"), 1239 ("55O/500"). 

• -■■ 3025 (fig. on p.164; "550/500"), 3057,3058, stone St211, 210, 272, 305, 306, 213 (all from 
, votive deposit, presumed "550/500"); Myres 1013, 1015, 2086, 2776; Louvre AM 819, 

Greek or Greco-Persian representations in or after the later sixth century. 109 In 
Cyprus horse- and chariot arrangements are apt to have a general quasi-Assyrian 
character (Crouwel/Tatton-Brown 1988), but Assyrian saddle-cloths are either 
plain animal skins or quilted objects with tassels along the lower edge (Barnett & 
Forman 1960: 83, 85, 87), and there is a case for postulating an Achaemenid 
source for the Cypriot and Anatolian items just listed. 110 Occasionally the Achae- 
menid saddle blanket coexists with a "Persian" horseman (Louvre AM 3463; 
Buchholz 1978: fig.63a), but for the most part it may be simply an equestrian 
fashion which might have been adopted without a strong sense of ideological 
statement. (It is worth noting that I know of no hint of adoption of other 
distinctively Iranian/Achaemenid features of horse-trapping [cf. Calmeyer 1985].) 
As a piece of decorated cloth, the Achaemenid saddle-blanket may have appealed 
to people in island noted for embroidery and parapetasmata 111 - unless indeed 
this was itself a taste engendered by Persian contact. (After all multi-coloured 
dress and carpetting became fashionable even in mainland Greece under Persian 

2. Harmamaxai. A small number of models of covered waggons have been 
found in Cyprus, as well as the remains of a real example (preserved in a Salamis 
tomb). There is no suggestion that the female or male occupants of the models or 
any other associated figures are shown in oriental dress, but the suggestion has 
been made that the vehicle is a harmamaxa, such as were used by high-ranking 

3463; Buchholz 1978: 222 fig.63a (a wheeled push-along toy consisting of a now headless 
rider (whose dress could be construed as belted knee-length chiton with trousers) on a horse 
with serrated blanket, from the deposit by the Tamassos Astarte altar; Tatton-Brown & 
Crouwel 1991 (on a rather elaborate terracotta representation of a horse-archer implicitly 
dated seventh/sixth c); Senff 1993: pl.62b = BM Sculpture C81 (Tamassos); BCH 1989: 
900 (fig.58); BCH 1993: 702 fig.46 (Amathus); BCH 1994: 494 (fig.22). 

109 CVA GB xiii 606.2 (Rhodes, c.525) = Anderson 1961 pi. 26a; CVA GB xiii 585 (Clazo- 
menae, 3/4 6th c.) = Anderson 1961 pi. 17a; Pottier 1892: 244 fig.2 (Clazomenae sarcopha- 
gus: Asiatic horseman in combat with Greeks); Duver (AR 1964); Silifke block II (Borch- 
hardt 1968); Alexander Mosaic (dying horse). 

110 Crouwel/Tatton Brown 1988: 78, citing Goldman 1984 (who ignores Cyprus). Goldman 
isolates a distinctive Achaemenid design with "half merlons on the trailing edge and a 
comma-and-dot fringe along the bottom" (8). The evidence shows phenomena rather more 
varied than this. Sometimes the "serrated" decoration is of roughly similar size (not 
necessarily shape) on rear and bottom edge, though any hint of size-difference favours a 
larger trailing edge (items from Achaemenid Village, Persepolis, Maku, Pazyryk, Erevan, 
British Museum). Elsewhere only the trailing edge may be serrated (Oxus Treasure, Susa 
ivories, gem stones [to which add Moortgat 1966: no.769, Boardman 1970b: fig. 292, 293, 
pi 843]). On Cypriot, Greek and Greco-Persian items, however, blankets are (where one 
can tell) only rarely serrated on both edges (BM Sculpture C 81; Young & Young 1955: 
3025; CVA GB xiii 606.2; Alexander Mosaic [a special case being explicitly the represen- 
tation of a Persian horse]), and some are not really square (e.g. Young and Young 1955: 
3025 [semicircular], Duver [cf. n.109: triangular]). The match is therefore imperfect; 
perhaps westerners found inspiration in the Achaemenid model rather than simply acquiring 
Achaemenid blankets. 

HI Aristoph. 61 1 K = 624 KA, Athen 48C. 




Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

C. Persian Evaluation and Assimilation 


Persian women. 112 If so, this is another Persian fashion adopted by Cypriots 
which ends up being reflected in rather mundane artisan products. But it is hard 
not to feel some sympathy for Gjerstad's comparison of them with 1930's 
Cypriot farm traffic. 

3. Coinage. All mints initially use a Persian standard. Deviations to Rhodian 
(Amathus, Lapethus, Citium) or Attic (Salamis) standards do not occur until the 
late fifth (Amathus) or fourth century. (The former is politically / ideologically 
insignificant, given the general spread of Rhodian standards in fourth century 
East Greek contexts. Nicocles' move to Attic may seem a more interesting 
phenomenon, but this could be an illusion.) Although sigloi (unlike darics) are 
apparently not found in Cypriot hoards, they appear as a monetary unit in ICS 309 
(Lefkoniko) and a weight siglos double the size of the coin-siglos standard is 
attested twice 113 - assuming in both cases that si does stand for siglos. The only 
indisputable Persian images on Cypriot coins are (a) the Persian-king- versus-lion 
on the (Sidonian) obverse of a hybrid Amathus-Sidon issue attributed to King 
Rhoikos 114 and (b) the "satrap head" issues of Evagoras II. 115 It is not entirely 
certain that the latter were issued in Cyprus and the former is certainly a special 
case, which shows that Rhoikos was not shy of specifically Persian colour but 
tends to point up its general lack. Some issues bear images susceptible of Persian 
interpretation: perhaps not the Salaminian ram whose external associations, if 
any, are Egypto-Cyrenaean rather than Achaemenid (Chaumont 1972: 183f; 
Porada 1989), but certain Paphian coins have a flying spread-eagle design which 
might recall the Persian royal standard, and Citian issues standardly use a lion- 
and-prey (stag) device, which in this context as others the viewer could probably 
"read" as Achaemenid or not according to choice. 116 However long-established 
an icon is, once an imperial power is known to use it (Bivar 1975 even suggested 
lion-and-prey was the badge of the Syrian satrapy), other people should arguably 
be wary of using it unless they are willing to accept the inference of association 
with the imperial power. In the present case, of course, we are locked in a vicious 
circle, for the whole question is whether lion-and-prey was seen to be an image 
ideologically exploited by the Achaemenid King and (more generally) how 
strong a sense of being part of an Achaemenid world most Cypriots had. 

112 Amathonte II: La Sculpture (1981) nos.43, 44; BCH 1993: 703 fig.48; SCE iii pl.l 16.1-3 
(Mersinaki); Lorimer 1903: 140 fig.7 (unknown Cypriot provenance). Lorimer adduced the 
harmamaxa, and Herniary accepts this. 

1 13 ICS 224 (Idalion): "2 sC y = 22.53 g; ICS 368 (with Seyrig 1932: 189): "4 «'" = 44.2 g. The 
latter bears the name of 'King Ni...'\ 

1 14 Destrooper-Georgiades 1987: 349, SNG Burton y Berry 1317, Amathonte I.i.61, 63f 

115 Hill 1904: xxiv, 18, 19, Babelon 1893: 624-6, pi. xvii nos. 17-18. 

116 Paphos: Hill 1904: pl.viii 1-5, xxi 12-17, xxii 1-2. Citium: Hill 1904: pll.iii-iv, xix.-On 
the royal standard cf. Nylander 1983. Eagles are highlighted in this context m 
XenAnab. 1.10.2, Cyr,7.1.4, Philostr.imag.2.31. For additional iconographic material cf. 
Ghirshman 1964: 370 fig.478, Bothmer 1984: no.l8,Cahn & Gerin 1988: pl.2.1-2, Cahn & 
Mannsperger 1991: pl.44.2-3. AelJVA 12.21 knew that Achaemenes was nurtured by an 
eagle - a story pattern paralleled a millenium later in Firdausi (see Tuplin [forthcoming 

4. Jewellery and Containers. A few items of Achaemenid or imitation Achae- 
menid jewellery are known 117 and occasional Iranian-style bronze or silver 
vessels, 118 as well as Cypriot ceramic imitations of phialai, rhyta and cups. 119 

5. Architecture. Two architectural elements recall Persepolis. (i) A bull- 
protome capital from Salamis (Hill 1940: pl.vii) - the only true capital with 
opposed protomes in Greek architecture (Roux 1978: 272) - awakens the idea of 
a "Persian" palace, like the one postulated on similar grounds at Sidon, but both 
date and context are unclear: Roux 1978: 256f made it post-Achaemenid; and it 
could be an isolated votive column, (ii) Torus column bases are known from 
Evreti-Palaipaphos, Amathus and Vouni. 120 But such bases do not have to be of 
Persian inspiration: in one context at Amathus the torus is conjoined with a 
multihedral column 121 and it surely likely that in this case the torus is as un- 
Achaemenid as the column, especially considering that the two elements separa- 
tely have Egyptian ancestry and that an un-Egyptian combination of them is just 
the sort of thing that might occur in Cyprus or Phoenicia. 122 Where this leaves the 
other torus bases is very hard to say. Claims have been made about the presence 
of more extensive Achaemenid palace design features at Vouni and Paphos 
(though not - so far - Amathus). But it is currently not fashionable to endorse 
these claims (partly admittedly because of dubitable historical conclusions drawn 
from them), except in the case of a different building at Paphos (that at Hadji 
Abdullah). 123 

6. Persian figures. Perhaps the richest category of interest is formed by items 
which represent, or could be held to represent, persons dressed wholly or partly in 
Persian dress. The presence of two fragments of Attic painted pottery with 
Persian figures at Paphos and Vouni quite possibly disclose an Athenian 
entrepreneur's calculation that such images would appeal in Cyprus, though it 
does not prove that it was a correct calculation. 124 On the other hand the nu- 

117 Amathus: Amandry 1958: 13 n.44, Amathonte Test.iii no.117. Vouni: SCE III 238 no.292 
e-g, pl.iv, xci-xcii, Amandry 1958: 13-14,20 (pi. 11,12). Unknown: Pierides Collection 
xxiv 3-4. BM Cat. (SCE 4.2.391). 

118 cf. Chavane 1982: 39f; Myres 1914: 4562, 4580. Idalion: SCE II pl.clxxx.6 = IV.2.151 
fig.28 no.7b (bronze); IV 2.160 fig.33 no.7 = Cesnola Atlas iii pl.37.3 = Myres 1914: 4579. 
Vouni: SCE III pi. lxxxviii 11 (424) = IV 2.151 fig.28 no.7c (bronze); SCE IV 2.160 
fig.33.9 & 10 = III pl.xc 4 & 6-7 (silver). Old Paphos: Chronique 1970: 224 fig.70. Larnaka 
region: Chronique 1979: 683, fig.36. This material is not generally found in contexts which 
could otherwise be called irano-persian. 

119 See SCE IV.2.399 no.13, fig.lvii 17, 18 [Salaminia xx 13]; Salamine IV 88 n.3; Buchholz 
1985: 253 (on "treue Abbilde achamenidischer Metalformen" from Tamassos). 

120 Palaipaphos: Maier 1986: 177 abb.54, 175 abb.51; Maier 1989b: 17, fig.6-8. Amathus: 
Chronique 1990 1006-7 fig.28, 1018 fig.55; Petit 1991b. Vouni: Aupert 1986: 379; SCE 

12 1 "colonne a pans coupeY': Chronique 1978: 959, fig.40 = AM 485 = Vandenabeele 1988: 

122 Petit 1991a speculates about a bit hilani prototype, while Aupert 1986: 380f stresses the 
Egyptian background (cf. Wright 1992: 535). The two are not inconsistent. 

123 See Maier 1989b. 

12 4 (1) Vouni: de Vries 1977: 546 (c.430) (enthroned king). (2) Paphos: Maier 1986: 159 fig-29 
(late fourth cent.) - a fragment showing a head in a long lappetted "tiara" 


Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

C. Persian Evaluation and Assimilation 


merous statues with rosette-adorned crowns rather reminiscent of Darius' Be- 
histun diadem cannot owe their existence solely to Persian inspiration, since the 
motif (also found on the steps of the Golgoi throne: cf Myres 1914: 1379) is 
attested before the Achaemenid era; at best this is another case (cf. above on 
coinage) where one asks whether continued use of the form can have ignored the 
Achaemenid parallel which had supervened. 125 Probably one should not even say 
that much about the fifth century examples of "oriental mantle men" (a form of 
eighth or seventh century origin), since it is perhaps only the first impression 
which ascribes them a Persian allure. 126 In the same way one should doubtless 
resist the feeling that a Golgoi relief (MMA 74.51.2310 = Myres 1914: 1869 = 
ICS 264) has a vague look of the Great King enthroned beneath a winged figure. 
(It is actually a figure of Apollo = Resef, according to Yon 1986.) But when we 
come to the rather numerous figures with oriental hats ("tiarai", "kurbasia!\ 
"Phrygian bonnets" etc.), there often seems little good reason (even when the 
figures otherwise wear non-oriental clothing 127 or survive without bodies and 
other clothing) to dismiss them as illusion or as simply part of a long-established 
substratum of oriental garb. 

Among bodyless heads, the small limestone head with tiara from the Amat- 
hus palace in Petit 1991b: 16 = Chronique 1990 1006, 1008 fig.31 is fairly 
convincingly "Persian" - granted that here, as elsewhere, the comparanda are not 
(only) Persepolitans but the Persians of western Anatolian epichoric monuments, 
of Greek and Hellenized coin and gem cutters and of Attic vase painters. The 
same goes for Louvre AM 2978 and CCA iv no.48, heads of bearded men with 
varieties of eastern hat (and sub- Achaemenid hair-styling: cf. n.144), which 
Herniary is happy to regard as a reflection of Achaemenid suzerainty 128 and for 
Myres 1914: 1475, a 15 cm. high head which is compared (ad loc.) and clearly 
belongs with better preserved stone (1231, 1350) and terracotta (2299-2301) 
items which display other features of Iranian clothing. 

Much more copious is the votive terracotta material from Curium dealt with 
by Young & Young 1955. From the later sixth century onwards (and beyond the 
end of the Achaemenid era) this is characterised by the presence of figures 

125 SeeMaier 1989a: 387 n.13, 389 n.30. Add Myres 1914: 1045, 1046ab, 1047, 1251-2, 1254- 
6; CCA 4 nos.15-17, 20, 34; CCA 6 no.29; Dikaios 1953: 83; Herniary 1989b: nos.54-60 
(B 444; AM 1 192; AO 16092; MN B314; AM 2953; AM 2956; AM 1 189); Nicosia 1968/V- 

126 Monloup 1984: 173;Crouwel 1991: 121ff; SCE III ccii.4,5; II ccxxxiii 2440, Cesnola Atlas 
II ix 66,70, xvi 23, xvii 96, xxi 174. Montloup 174 notes a time range 750-550. Such figures 
are found widely in East Mediterranean (including Rhodes: cf. Sorensen 1991, pi. lxvina 
(Lindos); pi. Ixixd-f (Lindos, 3 figures from chariot group) is stylistically comparable with 
mantle men), but specially Cyprus. 

127 AM 3463 = Herniary 1989b: no. 581 had an oriental hat and a serrated saddle-cloth (cf. 
n.l 10), but otherwise non-eastern garments. 

128 Herniary 1989b: ad loc. His guess (1989a: 181) that an unidentified bearded head in "bonnet 
orientate" in Rome copies an Athenian agora statue of Evagoras is piquant because Evago- 
ras was being celebrated for standing for hellenism - and perhaps optimistic. - CCA 4.48 is 
19.5 cm. high, implying a total figure of perhaps 1 10-120 cm. 

(normally riders or charioteers) who wear either a stiff "tiara" (of high or low 
variety) or a soft "kurbasia" 129 and whose costume (where discernible) involves 
trousers. 130 This is a highly distinctive product. 131 In this precise form it is 
peculiar not only to Cyprus but very largely to Curium (although there is certainly 
some evidence for a less intensive presence elsewhere of other - and better 
modelled - sorts of small terracotta "Persian" votives), 132 and it would be absurd 
not to connect the phenomenon with the Achaemenid empire. Petit (with reason) 
holds they are dedications not by Persians, but by locals. If so, it scarcely 
diminishes their significance. Quite the contrary. Young & Young 1955: 196f 
contend that the dedicators of these figures were ordinary Cypriots who wanted 

129 Tiarai. Young & Young 1955: passim. CCA 8 #14 (Ny Carlsberg) also belongs here (cf. 
Young and Young 1 955: 203, category D; note a parallel figure in the parabates of Young 
and Young no.1582). The "cloak" over the figure's head variously recalls women at 
Dascylium, at least one Attic vase picture and the hood of Myres 1914: 1846. Kurbasiai. 
Young & Young 1955: nos. 1592(pl.26), 1642-4,1767, 1918-9,2044,2112,2128 [pl.31], 
2209, 2878 - and (not made at Curium) 3027, 3028, 3031 (all pl.66). Only 2878 is post- 
Alexandrian. The terms "tiara" and "kurbasia" are used by Young & Young. There is a 
definite Persian allure to some other items, e.g. 1419 ("helmet A") -cf. Petit 1990, 1006f- 
2039 ("helmet with cheekpieces"). 

130 Young & Young 1955 remark that the trousers are tight, like those of Scythians on Attic 
vases and unlike the baggy trousers of Anatolian representations of Persians. But Attic 
Persians have pretty tight-fitting trousers too (as indeed do "Medians" at Persepolis), so 
there are no grounds for dissociating the Curium figures from Persia. The upper part of the 
body has a tight long-sleeved shirt, sometimes with short-sleeved jacket and occasionally a 
heavy chlamys. - A bronze figurine with "Persian" hat, belted chiton and trousers from the 
Idalion Apollo temenos (Masson 1968: 394 (h), fig.23: undated ) is described by Masson 
(without further comment) as "Scythian". "Persian" would do as well, but in any case it is 
surely an object which would not have joined the other orientalising or egyptianising 
material in the temenos except for the existence of the Achaemenid empire. 

131 It should be distinguished from the so-called "Persian riders" found in Phoenicia/Palestine 
and in N.Syria (on which cf. Stern 1982: 158f, Elayi 1991 (distinguishing N. Syrian 
workshops). For such things in Cyprus cf. Monloup 1984: 37-54, Decaudin: viii 28, xxii 3, 
lxii 135, lxxiv 27, xc 3 (cited in Elayi 1992 198 n.64). 

132 (1) Trousered riders appear on terracotta thrones of the seated goddess at Kition-Salines, 
and figures with "Phrygian bonnet" or Persian costume are reported from the same deposit. 
(2) The possibly trousered rider in Buchholz 1978: 222 fig.63a (above n.108) is also 
associated with Astarte. (3) Myres 1914: 2299-2301 ("hellenistic Phrygian votaries") are 
Persian figures with oriental hat, belted chiton, cloak and trousers (cf. Zournatzi 1989 and 
CCA iv.44, where they are adduced along with 1231 and 1350). 1299 has what might be 
intended as an akinakes. - Many entries in Myres evoke oriental hats with side lapels: 2101 
(explicitly a kyrbasia\ 1452-3 (soft peaked cap with side flaps), 2170 (pointed cap with 
long lapels; fringed cloak), 1257-60 (hat with chin strap knotted over forehead or behind 
peak) - the last a format resembling a Lefkoniko item whose side flaps are secured in front 
of the peak (Myres 1940/5: 62) and which is compared in turn with Myres 1914: 1004, 
1257, 1284, 1352. Such material needs to be reworked; not nearly as much of it may be pre- 
Achaemenid as Myres' dating implies. For further Lefkoniko items cf, Myres 1940/5: 63f, 
## 154-6 (stone statues - archaic cypriot, with Greek influence - with long tunics and knee- 
length cloaks, but wearing hats like those of Persians on Greek vases), and ## 375-81 
(hellenistic items with Phrygian peaked caps resembling that on Myres 1231). No details 
are available about Myres 1914: 4859 (an ornamental bronze "oriental head"). 




Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

C. Persian Evaluation and Assimilation 


their votive offerings to be pleasing to Apollo Hylates and therefore had them 
given an appearance derived from that of their own social superiors. The preva- 
lence of Iranian headgear therefore argues that (at least at Curium) a strikingly - 
even strangely - high valuation was put upon the imperial power, even in the 
context of private worship at a Hellenized native cult. A similar phenomenon has 
been discerned in a series of limestone statues of (mostly) children wearing 
oriental hats (Herniary 1989b: nos.444-475), which Herniary sees as inter alia 
expressions of loyalty by Achaemenid subjects, and at least eight other stone 
figures with oriental hats can be adduced, representing a statuary tradition which 
would assuredly not have existed without the fact of Achaemenid suzerainty. 133 
What does, perhaps, remain uncertain is how far it demonstrates that some 
elements of the social elite actually affected Persian dress. The way that Young & 
Young state and argue their general proposition implies that such a conclusion 
should be drawn. But the highly stereotyped, not to say mass-produced, nature of 
the Curium material could raise the possibility that the dress-choice is an icono- 
graphic metaphor not a statement about contemporary fashion. The same might 
also be said about Herniary' s statues, insofar as they involve children. In the end, 
though, the material as a whole seems a bit too copious and too varied in style, 
material and origin for a merely symbolic explanation to be plausible. One 
therefore has a choice. One could, after all, postulate Persian dedicators. But, 
although the mere fact that the material under review here is more or less unique 
to Cyprus might only prove that Persian outsiders are conforming to a strong 
local tradition, it hardly seems plausible that the Curium sanctuary came to be 
almost entirely patronized by foreigners (or even so much patronized by them as 
to create an Iranian fashion among local dedicators!). It is better to conclude that 
Cypriots did sometimes adopt the appearance of their Iranian masters. 

133 (1) Limestone, unknown provenance: Zournatzi 1989. Three-flapped hat (with laurel leaf)> 
trousers, kandys. The dagger hanging on the right side (in Persian fashion) is perhaps an 
akinakes, though attachment and shape are incorrect and the belt from which it hangs is 
plain and flat, not tied with loose ends. Figure once held a spear or long sceptre. (2) 
Limestone, Curium (MM 74.51.2339 = Myres 1914: 1846) with obscure 4th c. syllabic 
inscription, viz. welip(p)a = re.RU.TA.i, (I.Kourion 54 #22; cf. ICS 187). 33 cm. Hood, 
short chiton, trousers, candys. (3^4) Limestone (?), Pyla (Masson 1966: 18 fig.13-14 = 
Cesnola Atlas I cxxiv 915, 916). Identified as mageiroi by Masson, but surely Persians (cf. 
Zournatzi 1989: 128n.9).Fig. 13(headless: 1.65 m.) has candys, a dagger (lakinakes) worn 
on right and perhaps traces of ends of "Phrygian" bonnet at back. Fig. 14 (headless: 95 cm.) 
is similar, though the dagger is less clear. (5) Limestone (?) Golgoi (AM 3375 = Herniary 
1989b: #547). 31 cm. Head missing (traces of bonnet oriental). Sleeved chiton, trousers, 
short scale pattern chiton, ceinture a rabats, cloak with arms. Like many Greek-attired 
figures, holds a bird by wings in the left hand and box or coupelle in the right hand. (6) 
Limestone (?), provenance unknown (CCA 4 #44). 63 cm. Original head missing. Knee- 
length tunic with belt and long hanging ends, trousers, cape from shoulders. A knife hangs 
from right side. Compared ad loc. to Myres 1914: 1231, 1350, 2299-2301 and one of the 
Pyla items. The object is dated 3 or early 2nd c. (cf. pose with SCE 3 pl.cxlii 6-7, 4.3 
(7) Atlas I cxx 876 = Myres 1914: 1231, Curium. 20 cm. Sleeved belted chiton, cloak, 
Persian hat, trousers. Classified by Myres as hellenistic style. (8) Atlas I cii 675 = Myres 
1914: 1350. Curium. 77 cm. Sleeved belted chiton, cloak, Persian hat, trousers. Classified 
by Myres as hellenistic style. 

The range of material surveyed here is in general terms rather similar to that 
from mainland Phoenicia (cf. Elayi 1991a: 78f,80,81n.32): the onomastic eviden- 
ce is slightly better (though the numbers are perhaps altogether too small for this 
to be statistically significant) and there is certainly a richer showing of "oriental" 
figures. 134 It would be optimistic, but not entirely irrational, to infer that the 
ruling classes in Cyprus very intermittently toyed with the idea of assimilating 
hints of the suzerain foreign power into their style of status-expression. It must, 
however, be conceded - indeed stressed - that the behaviour of kings in this 
matter remains obscure. Most of the Iranian-dressed statues are small objects and 
there is certainly no demonstrably royal evidence for even the slight adoption of 
Persian fashion visible in the image of Yehaumilk of Byblos (Jidejian 1968: 97, 
104) nor any association of prince and satrapal image as clear as that on the 
Satrap Sarcophagus. Moreover, if foreign traits were used to "colour" Cypriot 
kingship in the Achaemenid era, they were as likely to be Egyptian or Phoenician 
(or both) as Persian. 

[1] A decided fashion for Hathoric iconography sets in from a little before the 
middle of the sixth century and lasts through much of the Achaemenid period. 
The appearance of Hathoric capitals in the Amathus palace suggests that, quite 
apart from a general assimilation with Aphrodite/Astarte, there was a connection 
with royal ideology (something consonant with Egyptian values (cf. RLA 4.149) 
and perhaps parallelled in Levantine Phoenicia by Yehaumilk' s worship of a 
Hathoric form of his patron deity B'LT GBL) and one may therefore be justified 
in inferring that similar associations applied elsewhere, even where the remaining 
items are not so directly connected with kings. 135 But if so, of course, the 
phenomenon is probably a piece of Saite influence 136 which remained unaffected 
by the island's transfer from Saite to Achaemenid suzerainty - a scenario which 
shows that Cypriot material culture was not intrinsically impervious to the effects 
of external political control (justified criticism of some of Gjerstad's associations 
of politics and art-styles - Vermeule 1974a, Watkins 1987 - should not be 

134 Recent observations on Phoenician architectural material appear in Yon & Caubet 1993; 
50f. Alleged religious survivals - which would distinguish Phoenicia from Cyprus - lack 
cogency. A 4th c. A.D. Mithraeum proves little; and the items in Will 1952: 72 all lie 
outside Phoenicia proper. Any (Mithraic) religious content in the lion-and-prey icon (Bivar 
1975: 2750 would apply to Citian as well as Byblite coinage. -Phoenicia and Cyprus seem 
more comparable in display of Achaemenid than of Assyrian features (cf. Reyes 1994: 61f). 

135 Provenances beside Amathus: Paphos, Vouni, Tamassos, Citium, Idalion, Golgoi, Kalavas- 
sos, Curium. For the material (exceptionally abundant compared with any other areas 
outside Egypt) see items mentioned and/or illustrated in Herniary 1985. The following may 
be added. Capitals. Caubet/Pic 1982: fig.4a (Louvre 93), fig.4b (Berlin s VA 2715 = 
Tatton-Brown 1986: 441). Other items. Chronique 1987: 722-3 fig. 198 (Amathus); BM 
Sculpture C 427 (Curium); Buccholz 1978: 227 (fig.67a) (Tamassos); Dikaios 1953: 123 
no. 19 (unstated provenance); Chronique 1993: 715 (fig.67) (Amathus). 

136 So Herniary 1985: 681, 1989b: 49, LIMC 457, Caubet/Pic 1982: 236, Karageorghis 1991: 
959f, Petit 1991b: 15. Wright 1992: 535 entertains the hypothesis of Saite influence in the 
case of (a) Hathor heads, (b) facetted columns (SCE 2,523 [234], 4.2.6; RDAC 1974: 145, 
**i 5), (c) the Salamis "lotus" tomb (cf. n.149). 


^**w. X 


Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

allowed to obscure this), but does not guarantee that such effects would be very 
strong outside the cultural horizons (Egyptian or Levantine) to which Cypriots 
had long been exposed and accustomed. The inclination to maintain Hathoric 
colour despite political change matches the fact that genuine Egyptian material 
found its way to Cyprus more than to Syria-Palestine in the sixth to fourth 
centuries, 137 and was probably also fostered by the continued indirect impact of 
Egyptianising cultural influence from Levantine Phoenicia. But, since Cypro- 
Phoenician art was traditionally less Egyptianising than Levantine Phoenician, 
we should be ware of regarding the phenomenon simply as a cultural banality. 

[2] A number of statues dating from the years either side of 500 show what 
are presumably ruler-figures wearing simple or elaborate versions of the Egypti- 
an double-crown. Some exemplify a larger class of Achaemenid era stone Egyp- 
tianising statuary described by Markoe 1990, and ascribed by him to Phoenician 
cultural influence (acting as source for what was in many ways not a contempor- 
ary Egyptian imagery). 138 But others (including the famous Paphian "priest-king" 
head in Liverpool) clearly stand apart from this group. 139 The Egyptian royal 
headgear is therefore not simply part of a single stylistic package; and this 
increases the likelihood that what we have here is an ideological sidelight upon 
the construction which Cypriot monarchs might put upon their own positions. It 
is less a question of whether such monarchs ever actually wore Egyptian crowns 
than whether (as seems likely to me) their idea of themselves was one to which 
Egyptian crowns would (they thought) be appropriate. The same thought is 
prompted by e.g. the occasional appearance at Amathus and Citium of anthropoid 
sarcophagi - borrowed from what was itself a post-Saite borrowing in Phoenicia 
- or by the blatantly or potentially oriental motifs which appear on some coinage: 
the ankh used on pre-Evagoran Salamis coins and not infrequently elsewhere in 
Cypriot numismatics is an Egyptianizing royal symbol (perhaps not mediated 
through Phoenicia in this case); 140 and the bull and winged disk of Paphos, 1 the 
lion-and-prey of Citium and the lotus and sphinx of Idalion are images which 
ought to have been avoided by any dynasty which thought it important to distance 
itself from the east. 

137 Salles 1991: 210; Elayi (comment at the 1993 Transeuphratene table ronde). 

138 Markoe 1990 adduces over 20 (reasonably complete, though often headless) items. At least 
four (Myres 1914: 1266, 1363, KA 248 = Markoe 1990: fig.3 = Maier 1989 fig.40.5 and 
Cesnola Atlas I xxxiii 212) have Egyptian double crowns, but Markoe 1990: 115 says that a 
"substantial number" have the pschent crown, so there may be more. Senff 1993: 82 re S^" * 
Egyptianizing statuary as reflecting the dress habits of ruling houses. (Note that Reyes 199 
finds Egyptian clothing traits in some small bronze statues which probably date from before 
Saite political domination.) , 

139 Kazaphani (RDAC 1978: pl.41.15), Aloa (Markoe 1987: pl.xlii.2-3), Louvre AM 2946 
(Golgoi), KA 730 (Paphos), Clerq 67-8, no.21-22, Maier 1989a: pl.40.6-7 = Dikaios 1953: 
pl.25.1. - The hair/beard styling also appears on one of Markoe 1 s egyptianising statues 
(Myres 1914: 1363), though in a rather understated form. 

140 cf. Stieglitz 1985; Collombier (comment at 1993 Transeuphratene table ronde). 

141 This calls to mind certain greco-persian gems as well as the image on a monument from 
Tayma (Dalley 1986b: 87). 

C. Persian Evaluation and Assimilation 


What is hard to say is what connection there is between any of this and the 
fact of Achaemenid overlordship. Historians have sometimes postulated that 
eighth and seventh century Cypriots rulers not only used Phoenician cultural 
markers as expressions of their style of kingship (Rupp 1988) but were indirectly 
prompted into doing so by the existence of the neo- Assyrian empire. 142 Did sixth 
and fifth century Cypriots behave similarly, mirroring Persian suzerainty by 
creating images which were largely or entirely non-Achaemenid but nonetheless 
set apart by their exoticism or pretentiousness? Herniary 1989a: 18 1 has claimed 
that a whole category of sculpted figures, including the crown-wearers detailed 
above, but extending to a statue (Louvre AM 2950 = Herniary 1989b: 229) with 
vegetation crown, un-achaemenid beard and no visually apparent Iranian overto- 
ne, are an "echo hellenise de 1' image du Roi ou des hautes personnages de 
l'empire achemenide" or show the Cypriot obeying the conservative principle of 
Achaemenid civilisation by means of creations in a style impregnated with Greek 
novelty - and this despite the fact that he regards the proximate source of 
inspiration for hathoric heads and double crowns as Saite domination of the 
island. Other historians content themselves with the observation that Phoenician 
"influence" becomes more visible during the Persian era (generally, not just in 
relation to potentially royal images). 143 Since the same can be said of Egypt (cf. 
Bresciani 1987, Bondi 1990: 265, 269), this may be a fact about (Levantine) 
Phoenicians as well as about Cyprus and the explanation may turn on the fact that 
Cyprus and Egypt were once again included in the same political framework as 
the Levant. But whereas in Egypt what is involved is simply increased evidence 
for Phoenician presence in what was essentially a foreign country, in Cyprus 
things are complicated by the island's being partly Phoenician to start with. To 
postulate that the phenomenon is a reflection of Persian rule does amount to 
saying that such rule for some reason encouraged Phoenician self-assertion and 
one may be willing to accept that. But that non-Phoenician Cypriot rulers positiv- 
ely accommodated themselves to Phoenician-inspired iconographies because 
they saw the Phoenicians as e.g. favoured subjects of the Great King seems 
implausible. A better line would be that Persian rule stimulated local royal self- 
expression and that it was simply natural - indeed traditional - for Cypriot rulers, 
including non-Phoenician ones, to look eastwards for the means of such self- 
expression. This brings one back to a position like that of Herniary; the only 
question is whether, although the bulk of the relevant evidence is of Persian date, 
the original stimulus may not go back to the preceding period - i.e. whether 
Persian suzerainty merely exacerbated tendencies already awoken by Saite au- 
tocracy. One thing is certain - the question is only complicated, not resolved, by 
the fact that a few of the "royal" statues display a treatment of beard and hair 
which resembles that of Assyrian or Achaemenid kings. For this is also true of 
many (apparently) non-royal statues and - more importantly - of non-Cypnot 
Greek kouroi of the later sixth and early fifth centuries. The fact of the empire s 

142 Frankenstein 1979; Nicolaou 1976: 315; SCE iv 2.462; Lipinski 1992. 

143 Karageorghis 1976: 111; Maier 1984: 182; Shefton 1989: 98f; Markoe 1990. 

0^'OC ; * 


Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

existence doubtless stimulates spread of this stylistic feature, but the ideological 
overtones of its adoption are arguable. 144 

These matters aside the impression one gets of Cypriot royal style from other 
sources is variable. 

Isocrates' Nicocles (oration 3) lays great stress on being a moderate and just 
ruler and Isocrates' advice to him on deportment is thoroughly "Greek" (Isocrates 
2; 15.69f). (The fact that some older copies in antiquity bore the title Symmakhi- 
kos is a neat reflection of the speaker's tone.) Evagoras is said to have been 
"populist in his courting of the masses" (demotikos.Jei tou plethous therapeiai: 
9.46), though other descriptions were possible (below 61). In Herodotus the word 

144 At least the following items display a treatment of beard and hair which has been compared 
with Achaemenid models. (1) Golgoi. Myres 1914: 1352 = Cesnola, Cyprus pl.143 =Mar- 
koe 1987 pl.xlii. 1. Pointed hat. (2) Lefkoniko head =Markoe 1987: pL41. Pointed hat. (3) 
Myres 1914: 1283 = SCE4.2 pl.xiv.l. Pointed hat. (4) CCA 5 no.72 ([mid 6th c.)]. Pointed 
hat, (5) CCA 4 no.34. Rosette Crown. (6) Kouklia KA 730 (Liverpool head). Egyptian 
double crown. (7) Aloa statue (Markoe 1987: pl.xlii.2-3). Egyptian double crown. (8) 
Vermeule 1976: 7a = Ashmolean Summary Guide 76, pl.lxixb. Fillet. (9) BM Sculpt. C76 = 
Senff 1993: pl.7d-f. Pointed hat. (10) BM Sculpt. C99. Beardless, but with snail-curl 
forehead hair-line. Rosette crown. (11) BM Sculpt. C100 = Senff 1993: pl.ll j-e. Narrow 
diadem with narcissus-like decoration. (12) BM Sculpt. C150 = Senff 1993: pl-17 e-h. 
Headband of uncertain character. (13) BM Sculpt. C151 (Pyla). Foliage crown. (14) BM 
Sculpt. C152 (Pyla). Foliage crown. (15) BM Sculpt. C153 (Achna). Hat missing. (16) BM 
Sculpt. C154 = Senff 1993: pl.l8a-g. Foliage crown. (17) BM Sculpt. C155 = Senff 1993: 
pl.l9e-g. Foliage crown. (18) BM Sculpt. C158 = Senff 1993: 19a-d. Narrow diadem with 
rosettes. (19) Myres 1914: 1284. Helmet with ? uraeus. (20) Myres 1914: 1363 = Markoe 
1990 fig.2. Double crown. (21) CCA 4 no. 48 (cf. p.54 above). Persian hat. (22) Louvre AM 
1 1 89. Rosette Crown. (23) Louvre AM 2784 (late 6th c.) Heracles figure. (24) Louvre 2789 
(second half 6th.c), (25) Louvre AM 2793 (early 5th c). Pointed hat. (26) Louvre AM 29 15. 
Pointed hat. (27) Louvre 2916 (second half 6th.c). (28) Louvre AM 2917 (525-500). 
Foliage crown. (29) Louvre AM 2939 (c. 500). Foliage crown. (30) Louvre AM 2944 (5th/ 
4th c). Foliage crown. (31) AM 2946 (Golgoi) = Herniary 1989a: fig.22.1,2. Egyptian 
double crown. (32) Louvre AM 2961 (second half 6th.c). Pointed hat. (33) Louvre AM 2972 
(late 6th c). Foliage crown. (34) Herniary 1989b: 219ff. (35) Louvre MNB 354 (early 5th 
c). Foliage crown. (36) Cesnola Atlas I lxxii 469. Foliage crown. (37) Cesnola Atlas I lxxn 
470 (Golgoi). Foliage crown. (38) Cesnola Atlas I lxxii 471 (Golgoi). Foliage crown. (39) 
Cesnola Atlas I lxxii 474 (Lapithos). Foliage crown. (40) Cesnola Atlas I lix 406 (Vermeule 
1974a: pl.61, 62). Pointed hat. (41) Pyla: Masson 1966: 13 (fig.17). Hair in tresses and 
wearing a short tunic covering half the body crossing the left shoulder only. Foliage Crown. 
(42) Lefkoniko 160 (Myres 1940/45: pi. 13). Foliage crown. (43) RDAC 1978: pl.xxxix 10 
(Kazaphani). (44) Paris S208 (mid-5th c). Foliage crown. (45) Michaelides Coll. 1968/v- 
30/696 (BCH 1969: 452 [4], 456 [36ab]). Rosette crown. - Of these only nos. 
5,6,7,10,18,20,22,31,45 as far as I know, wear regal hats (rosette crowns [5,10,22,45] or 
double crowns) - perhaps also no. 19 which appears to have a pseudo-uraeus on its hat and 
be related to the double crown category. The phenomenon should perhaps rather be seen 
more in terms of a general artistic style than ideological borrowing - after all the snail cur 
hair/beard treatment is found in Greek art at end of 6th c. and in earlier 5th c. kouroi and 
relief sculpture (Markoe 1987: 121 n.14). Only (21) apparently has a Persian hat. Of course, 
regal insignia become progressively uncommon anyway from late 6th c. (Senff 1993: /3, 

C. Persian Evaluation and Assimilation 


basileus is not always attached to Cypriot leaders (only in 7.90 and 8.11); and 
there is a certain justice in claims that Idalion practised "democratic kingship" 
(ICS 217 insistently pairs King and Ptolis and is dated by an eponymous magist- 
rate; 145 and the royal name and city-name alternate on some issues of coinage). A 
fragmentary early fifth century text from Curium (ICS 180b; I.Kourion 218; 
Karageorghis & Mitford 1964) has also been thought sigificant by virtue of its 
reference to demos and use of the word themizein (seen, presumably, as a hint that 
the king operated within a framework of law); 146 and the new Year One text of 
Milkyaton of Citium provides an association of King and "all the people" (alon- 
gside a more striking piece of hellenic assimilation in the shape of a Phoenician 
trophy) - though it, is at least possible that the context - celebration of military 
victory at the start of a new reign (and perhaps of a new dynasty) - favours this 
anyway and casts less light on general political contexts. 147 The island's coinage 
circulated almost exclusively within the island and in practice its function, 
besides the purely economic one, was to assert each kingdom's identity within a 
rather modest area. Superscriptions including royal names are the order of the 
day; but some issues are anepigraphic and therefore a fortiori not ostentatiously 
royal or autocratic; and when the Greek alphabet starts to be used on coinage, it is 
in some cases confined to the inscription of the city as opposed to the king' s name 
(though actually the reverse happens at Salamis, the first place to use Greek 
alphabetic coin inscriptions). This may disclose an interestingly unegotistical 
acceptance that in outsiders' eyes it was the city-attribution, not the royal name, 
which was important and needed to be comprehensible. (The total absence of 
coins in some places may not, however, have any clear message about the nature 
of the local kingship). 148 

But such signs of modesty have to be set against various countervailing 

(a) Evagoras, for all his populist tendencies, is alsopolitikos, strategikos and 
tyrannikos\ and Isocrates is prepared to describe his position as tyranny - "the 
greatest, most august and most sought-after good among gods and men" - and 
compare it with that of Cyrus the Elder. The same goes for Nicocles, cheerfully 
classified as tyrannos (9.76) and despotes (15.40). The survival of the word anax 
is of a piece with this - if contemporaries agreed with the modern perception that 

145 The existence of a discernible palace at Idalion is disputed (Maier 1989: 16 n.9; Senff 1993: 
4 n.31). - it is sometimes said that ICS 327 + Mitford 1961: 38-45 shows an eponymous 
magistrate on a text from (?) Chytroi. But the relevant reference is apparently to someone in 
charge of a religious festival. 

146 The rare use of stoichedon is additionally claimed as Athenian influence, with an implicit 
suggestion that stone-cutting style is acompanied by ideological influence. 

147 By year 4 Milkyaton appears alone in a dating formula (ICS 220). But mainland Phoenician 
kingship has also in any case been claimed to display non-autocratic features. 

!48 (i) the earliest Citian coins are uninscribed, (ii) there are unnamed Lapethos issues running 
alongside and perhaps earlier than the named ones, and (iii) the CS inscription - on some 
issues (ICS p.300; BMC Cyprus xliv-vii) may stand for Golgion - though there is no certain 
evidence otherwise for Golgian coinage at all or indeed for Golgoi being an independent 
kingdom in this period. 



Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

in Homer anax (as distinct from basileus) connotes effective power (Levy 1987). 
The special status of the princes and princesses of the Cypriot states (see below) 
by itself confirms that we are not dealing with an "empty" monarchic show 
conferred on the city's chief executive, and Isocrates revealingly praises Evago- 
ras for having caused his whole family (genos) to resume enjoyment of the 
honours approriate to it (9.66). There are still certain or possible "Royal Tombs" 
to be encountered at Paphos, Curium (a massive construction) and Tamassos. At 
Salamis, however, there is little comparable to the archaic funerary splendours, at 
least until the last king Nicocreon's funeral pyre and cenotaph - and even that is 
perhaps somewhat tawdry, since the pyramid base was of mud-brick and the 
surrounding life-size statues of clay. 149 Fifth and fourth century Salamis was in 
general a smaller and less prosperous place than the archaic city, but (so far) there 
appears to no physical evidence that this is because the royal family had siphoned 
off all the wealth for itself. 150 

(b) The rulers of Paphos could claim to be priest kings; and, in view of the 
association of this phenomenon with the figure of the Ur-king Cinyras, it is 
perhaps conceivable that something of the same applied at Amathus which 
rivalled Paphos in laying claim to Cinyras. 151 

But attempts to extend the range further are questionable. At Citium Yon 
1989: 373 perceives a theocracy, with the protection of Melqart assuring the king 
quasi-divine status and (one may add) a tradition of royal medicine and magic in 

149 Paphos. Spilaion tis Rhegainas, tomb of Echetimos and Timocharis (Chronique 1991: 821; 
1992: 820). Three principal chambers of which two have four secondary chambers each. 
The main chambers and dromos are on slightly different axes. Curium. A pillaged tomb 
used thrice betwen 500/475 and 350 (Chronique 1991: 819). There are gold jewels, a 
diadem, necklaces and bracelets, materials much like the Cesnola Curium treasure in 
Metropolitan Museum, which may have come from a royal burial (cf. Masson 1984: 77-83: 
treasure material apparently from necropolis area at Ag.Hermogenis). This tomb is huge (24 
m. long, 6.5 m. wide and up to 4 m. high dromos, chamber 6.2 by 2.75 by max. 4.00), the 
largest such thing in Greece or Cyprus. Tamassos. Two late archaic "royal" tombs - stepped 
dromos, aeolic-capital pilasters at stomion, two chambers, relief decoration of lotus inside 
(Karageorghis 1978: 367; Buchholz 1973: 322, 1974: 578). Salamis. Tomb 79, secondary 
use with horse burial and remains of hearse and chariot and Tomb 80 (early 5th a), with 
painted chamber in Egyptian style (Karageorghis 1967/78: iii 127) may be noted. But 
Nicocreon's monument (Tomb 77) is more striking. An amphora from the tumulus has the 
graffito [tou hier\ou alsous (Karageorghis 1967/78: iii 231), but the restoration and referen- 
ce are uncertain. Possibly also relevant are (i) a Larnaka-Phaneromini megalithic tomb 
recalling Salamis royal tombs (Karageorghis 1976: 142) and (ii) late archaic stepped 
dromos tombs at Amathus (Chronique 1979: 723). 

150 Collombier 1975: 82. The classical Cellarka tombs are poorer than the archaic ones 
(Karageorghis, 1967/78: II 234); hellenising and atticising relief gravestones replace more 
imposing monuments (cf. Boardman & Kurz 1971: 319). 

151 Paphos: priest kingship attested by title King of Paphos and Priest of the Wanassa in 4th c. 
inscriptions of Nikokles (ICS 6,7,90-91), Timarchos (4), Timocharis (16), Echetimos (17) 
and ? (5). See also Pind.P.2.15 (cum schol.); Tac.//w/.2.2-^; Firmic.Mat.^; 
Diod.20.49.1; Hesych. s.v. Kinyradai; Mitford 1961c: 13 (no.32); SEG 39.1365. Amathus: 
Herniary 1985 suggests that the Hathoric capitals in the palace imply a royal link with 
Astarte/ Aphrodite and suggest priest-kingship. 

C. Persian Evaluation and Assimilation 


the Kition-Bamboula Astarte sanctuary (Yon 1991: 163). But there is no evidence 
remotely like that for Paphos. The only items casting any light at all on nature of 
Citian kingship are those relating to "administration" 152 - and it is not in truth a 
great deal of light, though the six-generation dynasty of rab sarsourim no doubt 
discloses a very "undemocratic" organisation of things. (It is pity that there is 
dispute about whether the title means chief of commercial agents or chief of 
courtiers of the court.). Yon's claim (e.g. 1992: 257) that the later fifth century 
redesign of the Astarte sanctuary presupposes a combination in one person of 
royal and priestly authority lacks cogency. Gjerstad 1944: 109 inferred priest- 
king status for the Teucrids at Salamis from the fact that Olbe in Rough Cilicia 
had a temple of Zeus allegedly founded by Teucer' s son Ajax and was ruled by 
priest-dynasts named Teucer or Ajax (cf. Strabo 14.5.10). But the earliest attesta- 
tion of Zeus Olbios is early hellenistic and the earliest recorded priest called 
Teucer from c.200, and the whole Teucer connection is surely a hellenistic 
invention generated from the native name Tarkuaris which casts absolutely no 
light on the Salaminian royal family. 153 Yon makes a lesser claim about them, 
that their Teukrid pretensions disclose an oriental attitude to kingship, apparently 
because they involve a claimed connection with Zeus and hint at the idea of 
divine kinship. This is scarcely reasonable: were the Spartan royal families guilty 
of orientalism because of their Heraclid descent? In an area where princes were 
called anax and war-chariots were still in use (below 70) one may prefer to think 
that concern about descent from Ajax was a Homeric trait, in just the same way 
that the archaic Royal Tombs of Salamis display Homeric features in terms of 
funerary customs, for all that their furniture is also certainly full of oriental colour 
and show. The persistence of coin issues with Euelthon's name long after his 
death is certainly striking, but it does not make Euelthon a hero or Salaminian 
kingship hieratic; and when Isocrates later told Nicocles not to take up the 
kingship "like a priesthood", this should not be taken as hinting at a serious 
element of priest-kingship in Salaminian tradition. It is simply a striking way 
(and very Greek one since predicated on a Greek world of amateur priests) of 

152 spt (shouphet), judge (CIS 1.47, 4th c). skn of Tyre (probably a visitor, rather than an 
official of colonial dependence: cf 65n.l56). rb sprm (rab soupherim\ chief of scribes 
(Kition III A30 [Astarte accounts] & stele in Hadjisavvas et al. 1984 [4th c.]). An important 
official and perhaps (Masson/Sznycer 1972: 2 If, Collombier 1992: 444) a royal agent 
overseeing the temple, rb srsrm (rab sarsourim), chief of commercial agents (Guzzo 
Amadasi 1978, Yon 1987) or chief of courtiers of the court (Sznycer 1985: 82). Attested in 
a fourth c. funerary stele = Kition in B45 where it is held by six generations of a family, 
including two individuals named PRSY. rb hz'nm (rab houzeenim\ chief of inspectors of 
springs (Kition III B45), title of deceased's maternal great-great-grandfather in mid 5th 
c(His grandfather and great-grandfather are called Baalrom and Melekiathon, so is this 
family close to royal family?). For further commentary see Yon 1987. Recent reintcrprcta- 
tion of an Ag.Georghios text previously thought to name one Moula "the Hittite' 'has 
produced an alleged royal functionary in charge of salt workings (mlhyt): see Yon 1991: 
153 RE 17.2399ff (Ruge); Magie 1950: 269, 1 143 n.23. The earliest priest called Teucer is a son 
of Tarkuaris. Olbe is 25 km. N of Silifke, near Uzuncaburc. Its identification with the 6th c. 
royal city Ura (ABC 103f) is denied by Davesne/Lozachmeur/Lemaire 1987: 373f. 




Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

saying that he should not treat his position as a virtual sinecure. (There may also 
be a certain irony in it, since the most prominent potential evidence of Nicocles' 
unconcern about the job of ruling Salamis consists in his passion for luxury. 154 ) 
More significant perhaps is Isocrates' willingness to declare that Evagoras deser- 
ved immortality and had out-performed most demi-gods (9.70f). Its significance, 
however, is not as testimony of actual Cypriot king-worship but as a reflection of 
atmosphere: for one is tempted to think that there was something about the style 
of Salaminian monarchy (and the marginality of Cyprus to the Greek world: see 
below p.68) which made such extravagance easier. In the same way one may note 
Lucian's report (imagines 27) that Evagoras' wife was (quite exceptionally for an 
ordinary mortal) called Leto. The source for this is, of course, untraceable, but 
whether it is true or, for example, derived from misunderstanding of some 
comedian's joke, it may reveal directly or indirectly something about the style 
that characterised or was thought to characterise the rulers of Salamis. 

(c) The stories about the rivalry of Nicocles and Straton of Sidon in pursuit of 
the luxurious life-style show that the overt impression Isocrates gives of Evago- 
ras' son and heir is somewhat one-sided - though 9.38 admits Nicocles' possessi- 
on of sources of luxury (while alleging that he is (more) interested in philosophy) 
and the historical data on his hedonism actually contain nothing inconsistent with 
Isocrates' praise for the King's monogamous sexual behaviour (3.36f) - and 
demonstrates the importance for Nicocles of his place in an eastern world. (This 
is all the more true if Maier 1994: 328 is right to postulate an essentially friendly 
character to the competition.) The patronage of Isocrates, of course, displays the 
western side of the coin, but (together with that of other artists) is simply one 
feature of a the maintenance of a "court" - with all that that implies. As Petit 1991 
observes, Isocrates for his own reasons suppresses the excesses and the exoticism 
(not to say orientalism) of the island of which we get some reflection in Attic 
comedy (the island of Adonis [Plato Comicus: n.163], home of opulent tapestries 
[Aristophanes 61 1 K = 624 KA], scene of such indulgences as the use of pigeons 
to fan the Paphian king [Antiphanes Stratiotes 202 K = 200 KA].) One should 
remember the royal tombs, and the extravagant funeral of Evagoras (Isocrates 
9.1). Clearchus of Soli (19 Wehrli) wrote at length about Cypriot kings and their 
flatterers. He also included some rather interesting material about political sur- 
veillance. This is a topic to which Isocrates probably alludes in characteristically 
veiled fashion. Evagoras (we are told) knew each citizen so well that conspiracies 
were impossible to sustain - and good citizens got rewarded (9.42); and Nicocles 
is made to speak of the undesirability of unsanctioned hetaireiai and synodoi 
(3.52f). But Clearchus provides details of the system which Maier 1994: 300f 
regards as modelled on Persian practice. The proposition is tempting, but doubts 
remain. The spies were known as "flatterers" (kolakes) and divided into two 
hereditary categories with obscure and archaic-sounding titles (Gerginoi, Proma- 

154 Maier 1994: 328 wonders if the whole Isocratean laudatio of Nicocles is ironic -a 
seductive thought, but probably over-optimistic. It would an extra twist to the hypothesis 
that Aristotle's Protrepticus (fr. 50 Rose) was addressed to Themison "King of Cyprus" in 
some sort of riposte to the Isocrates/Nicocles connection (During 1961: 173f)- 

D. Ethnicity 


langes); and although Eustathius (ad Iliadem 13.582) may have propounded the 
Persian parallel, Clearchus, our principal and lengthily preserved source, rather 
strikingly does not. As Maier himself hints, the techniques of autocracy do not 
have to be explained according to diffusionist principles. 

It remains hard to say how far these sorts of phenomena represent specific 
side-effects of Persian rule and whether overall, if metropolitan Greeks might be 
inclined to regard Cypriot kings as dangerously oriental, oriental Kings might be 
inclined to think them a little underplayed. 

The suggestion that rulers in Cyprus under the Persian aegis may at least not 
have entirely resisted a certain orientalization of style leads one to a wider 
question of ethnicity and political allegiance. 


It has become very fashionable to decry ethnic arguments. (Stylianou 1985 is an 
honourable exception.) The line of approach which assumes that the Persian 
suzerain and the Phoenician element in Cyprus were characteristically in cahoots 
against the Greeks and that the Persian suzerainty created ethnic tensions where 
none previously existed (Meiggs 1972: 48 1 ; SCE iv 2.48 1) has been dismissed as 
allegedly untrue to the evidences of ethnic assimilation and (bluntly) as a piece of 
post-Isocratean racialism. No doubt it is Isocratean: Isocrates certainly presents 
the Phoenician usurper at Salamis as having "made the island subject to the Great 
King" - a due counterpart to the heroic and Hellenic resistance of Evagoras to 
being cowed by the satraps and minions of Artaxerxes II. Seibert 1976 complains 
that since the island was already subject to the Persian king Isocrates' claim is 
empty; but if the date of usurpation is close to that of Cimon's expedition and if 
we reject the Peace of Callias, the orator's viewpoint is not simply absurd. 155 

Two further points can be made. First, the intrusion of Phoenicians into the 
ruling dynasty of Salamis was a remarkable fact, especially on top of what could 
be represented as a rather unstable regal history since 480. It is true that there had 
been a Phoenician-named king before (Siromos, s. of Euelthon) and that the first 
mid-fifth century "usurper" behaved tolerantly towards Evagoras. But Abdemon 
was different, and Abdemon is the one who matters most, since there is a clear 
tradition that he was an outsider and could perfectly well represent Citian impe- 
rialism. 156 Second, while it may be extreme (and silly) to say that, as a result of 
being ruled by Phoenicians, Salamis had no harbour or emporion, it is not 

155 Stylianou 1985 goes further, arguing that (some) Cypriots were in the Delian League from 
478 to after 449 and that Cyprus was not explicitly named in the Peace of Callias - so 
Isocrates' statement can be perfectly true. His premisses are scarcely mutually consistent. If 
there was a Peace of Callias and if Cypriots were Delian League allies then the Peace would 
surely have mentioned the island. 

156 Abdemon is Citian in Theopomp.ll5F103, Tyrian in Diod.14.98. The former is probably 
more authoritative; for Tyrian-Citian connection in 4th c. cf. the SKN of Tyre sarcophagus 
(Masson-Sznycer 1972: 69f). For Citian imperialism cf. remoulding of harbours at Kition- 
Bamboula in later fifth c. 



Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

D. Ethnicity 


necessarily silly to assume that Salamis under Phoenician rule may have had a 
different attitude - maybe only slightly but perceptibly - to Greek traders. We are 
not necessarily talking about major re-focussing of the economy of Salamis. But 
we are talking about a different tone and a degree of inhospitability in those 
harbours and commercial places which Isocrates claimed did not exist; and we 
are certainly talking about Greek perceptions as much as about realities. In racist 
matters, perceptions are facts in their own right; and the language of Isocrates 
9.47f (esp. 67) is seriously racist - if it is not simply accurate. Either way we 
should not play down the phenomena; and we should beware of excessive 
reaction to Isocratean analyses. In this spirit I offer the following observations on 
matters ethnic. 

1. The Phoenician presence in Cyprus was certainly concentrated in Citium 
and Lapethos. But there are at least some Phoenician texts from all parts of the 
island and there are of course various possible signs of Phoenician-Greek assimi- 
lation or friendly coexistence. For example: 

(a) Nomenclature: the Phoenician named daughter of one Didyme in the fifth 
century Ag.Georghios cemetry at Citium, an early fourth century mercenary from 
Ledra called Balsamon, s. of Philodemus, the Greek-named kings recorded in 
Phoenician on the coins of Lapethos, the man at Tamassos in the fourth century 
who called himself Menahem in Phoenician and Mnaseas in Greek. 157 

(b) Writing systems: a late fourth century ostracon from Lapethos appears to 
bear a text in a mixture of Greek and Phoenician, written in Greek letters; a fifth 
century tomb insciption (often quoted as a totem of assimilation) records in 
Cypriot syllabary the demise of Abdobalos [Phoenician] s. of Moles [Anatolian]; 
and coin names in use at Citium are apparently Phoenician translations of Greek 
terms (Manfredi 1987). 158 

(c) Cult, ritual and iconography: the Citium Ag.Georghios cemetery has 
Greek-decorated Phoenician-type grave stelai and the funerary customs are in- 
distinct from general Cypriot ones (Hadjisawas 1986); Salles 1985: 296f notes 
the use of Telos-group RF vessels with Anthesteria scenes at Citium-Bamboula 
as an "appropriate" analogue to celebration of Astarte, and the deities at both the 
Citium-Bamboula and Citium-Salines sanctuaries take on a Greek iconographic 
or artistic style in the fifth century (though Caubet for one regards that as a purely 
superficial stylistic hellenisation: 1986: 165); two bilingual dedications from 
Tamassos show Phoenicians honouring Apollo (alias Resef) Heleitis and Alasio- 
tes (ICS 215-6); texts from Idalion may refer to Apollo Amyklaios under the 
invented Phoenician name Resef Mikal or may be assimilating Apollo Amyklaios 
to an actual Phoenician god Resef Mikal (Lipinski 1987); there may have been a 
similar association of Resef and Apollo in adjacent sanctuaries at Pyla as far back 
as the seventh century (at any rate Resef is known there in the seventh century, 
while Apollo Mageirios, Lakeutes and Keirates are features of the classical 
scene: Masson 1966); "Resef of the arrow" is perhaps an archer Heracles analo- 

157 Masson 1981: 260 (no.l); Hadjisawas 1986; ICS 215 

158 Masson-Sznycer 1982: 127 

gue (Yon 1986); the rural sanctuaries at Meniko (Tamassos) and Kommisariato 
(Limassol) are said to disclose Phoenician participation in originally Greek cult 
places; 159 there are various Heracles images which may sometimes represent 
Melqart, though views differ on this: Yon 1986 is sceptical, whereas Jourdain- 
Annequin 1993 takes it for granted and offers the further (somewhat obscure) 
suggestion that the assimilation is prompted by the circumstance of Achaemenid 
rule; Citium established a hero-cult of Cimon by the mid fourth century (Nau- 
sicrates ap.Plutarch Cimon 19) and in the early fourth century erected a "trophy" 
(of which more later). One argument about Citium should, however, be treated 
with scepticism, viz. the claim that the absence of tophets and the Tanit cult in the 
city shows the Citians' wish to assimilate to Greek ideas or at least not be 
ostentatiously un-Greek. This is a quite unjustified inference in the case of 
tophets: Garbini's comments (1981) do not really alter the fact that they are a 
western Mediterranean phenomenon also absent in Levantine Phoenicia (Gras, 
Rouillard and Teixidor 1991: 150-73). Tanit is a slightly different matter, since 
her absence is out of line with mainland Phoenicia; but one wonders whether 
Citium' s preference for Astarte is really more likely to be a reaction to attitudes 
of Greek Cypriots than to belong in the current of inter-Phoenician relationships 
(particularly given Tank's association with Sidon, and Citium's with Tyre). The 
"phoenicisation" of Jewish families at Citium (Puech 1990: esp.105) should not 
be cited as presumptive evidence about all manner of racial assimilation since (i) 
the data are in dispute and (ii) it begs the question which is precisely what sort of 
assimilation occurs outside the Semitic ethnic group. 

(d) General material culture: this is a tricky area because of the problem of 
distinguishing a general tendency to an "oriental" allure in things Cypriot from 
manifestations illustrative or one or other ethnic community and of their inter- 
actions. But Snodgrass has been prepared to hail the contents of Bikai 1987 on 
Phoenician pottery in Cyprus and the presence of Phoenician objects in archaic 
Salminian graves as a sign of friendly co-existence in the eighth to seventh 
centuries and in some degree a conclusion of this sort must be legitimate in later 
periods too (Snodgrass 1988; compare/contrast Rupp 1988, 1989). We shall also 
see elsewhere that Greek Cypriot kings may have been content to adopt symbols 
of royalty of proximately Phoenician origin. 

For all this, though, I feel sure that Collombier 1992 is correct to say that the 
Greek and Phoenician communities in Persian period Cyprus were still essential- 
ly separate; a single ethnic melange was not being created. For every item which 
night be hailed as assimilationist there are many more which simply show 
"Phoenician behaviour" going on alongside Greco-Cypriot behaviour. And one 
should recall that Cypriot phenomena are as prone to "hellenizing" influence as 
Phoenician ones - compare e.g. the rural sanctuaries of Salamis area in early 

159 One wonders how much this changed the Greek character of the places - assimilation or 
take-over? The relationship between the ram-horned seated deity at Meniko (supposed by 
some to be Ba'al Hammon) and the majority of this class of figures found elsewhere which 
are decidedly different and not associated with clearly defined cult-places (Buchholz 1991 : 
93) poses nice questions. 




$ ■ 









Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

D. Ethnicity 


fourth century or the spread of use of the Greek alphabet or the general advance 
of Hellenic art-styles (Vermeule 1976: 13-44). At the extreme and as a minimum 
Citium was after all simply a Phoenician city like any other such in the Levant 160 

2. There are various observations one can make about the identity or distinc- 
tiveness of the Greek Cypriot population. 

(i) In the first place, there is little doubt that Greek authors from Asia Minor 
or mainland Greece sometimes implicitly or explicitly treat Cyprus as somewhat 
alien. I think it is quite striking, for example, that Herodotus notes Phoenician 
facts about Cyprus (1.105, 199, 2.79) without laying any stress on them being 
facts about Phoenician Cyprus -as though all of Cyprus was eccentric enough for 
it to be unnecessary to stress the special (ethnic) eccentricity of some of it. (One 
should remember that, for Herodotus, the ethnic make-up of Cyprus also included 
Ethiopians and Dryopian Cythnians: 7.90.) When Hipponax 125 writes "they eat 
Cypriot bread and Amathusian wheat" one asks oneself what it says about 
attitudes to Cyprus that a Phrygian word for bread (bekos) is used in reference to 
Cypnots - perhaps that all "foreign" languages are the same, and suspect? 
Perhaps these are over-subtle reactions. But Pseudo-Scylax' statement that the 
Cypriot cities of the interior are "barbarian" is unambiguous - and false - and 
there can be little doubt of the implicit significance of Plato's observation (Lam 
738C) that long established Greek civic or religious rituals may turn out to have 
unexpected sources - for example Etruria or Cyprus. Io's journey, as described 
by Aeschylus (Supplices 547), ranges over various parts of the Asiatic - i.e. 
exotic not to say alien or threatening - world, including the fertile island of 
Aphrodite with its potamoi aenaoi, bathuploutos chthon and polypuros aia, 
which is passed between Pamphylia / Cilica and Egypt. 161 More striking still are 
two further tragic passages, (i) In Euripides' Bacchae (402) the chorus refers to 
the 100-mouthed stream of a barbaros river watering Paphos "without rain". 
Masson 1990 explains that Paphos was unusual in having three river mouths in its 
territory (Xeropotamos, Diarrhizos and Khapopotamos), and that "barbarian" 
means that the river's flow is violent (when the snow melts). This is a remarkable 
attempt to evade the point that for Euripides the location is exotic and alien - the 
idea ol a 100-mouthed river and the word "barbarian" surely prove that. Whate- 
ver relation to hydraulic and topographic reality one may pretend there is, the 

160 What the nature and substance of Cypriot-Levantine Phoenicia interchange was in the 
rasian era is hard to say. There has been claimed to have been a drop in imports from 
t-yprus into Phoenicia in the fifth a, and a slippage in date between impact of Attic pottery 
in Cyprus and N.Syria might fit. (The lack of interchange of coinage is not specially 
signincant, given that neither coinage appears to be of international currency.) On the other 
nana notice (a) an Amathus coin with Sidonian obverse, (b) Pumiathon and Sidon (Esmun), 
(c) a Tynan skn i at Citium and (d) the rivalry of Strato and Nicocles. 
ci the role of Cyprus in certain Homeric travels: OdyssAM: Menelaus' wanderings in 

ai^i n "^i^ 1, Ethi ° pia * Sidon ' Erem boi, Libya; ibid. 17.425ff: the brigand who 
attacked Egypt and was deported to Dmetor s. of Iasus, ruler of Cyprus and ally of the 
XSTr H ° m ; Hym - vii 28f ' wher * Dionysus' destinations are Egypt, Cyprus, Hyper- 
,vn? * «. P T y appearS ° nce in the Iliad in the shape of Cinyras and his lavish and 
exotic gift to Agamemnon (cf. Morris 1992: 8; and nn.177, 178, 183 below). 

reality in question has been transformed into a representative of the peculiar. 
(Molyneux 1985 observes that this passage puts Cyprus at the eastern edge of 
"Greek" world, as Olympus is at the northern edge.) (ii) In a much debated 
passage Aeschylus writes {Supplices 282): Kyprios kharakter fen gunaikeiois 
tupois/eikos peplektai tektonon pros arsenon. Attempts to prove that this does 
not reflect a perception that Cyprus is peculiar (e.g. Hadjiioannou 1985) are 
unconvincing. The King is trying to indicate that the chorus are clearly foreign, 
and refers to Nile Valley, to Indian nomads near the Ethiopians and to Amazons 
as well as to Kyprios kharakter to express this. Compared with this the issue of 
whether a specific reference to Cypriot sculpture is involved is of secondary 
importance. (For other discussions and references cf. Sommerstein 1977, Hadji- 
ioannou 1990.) A character in fourth-century comedy (Eriphus 2 K = 2 KA), 
seeking to stress the special status of some pieces of fruit speaks of citrous fruit 
from the Great King, the apples of the Hesperides and pomegranates from the 
sole tree planted in Cyprus by Aphrodite. 162 This is one of a vast number of 
passages which make reference to the single most familiar things about Cyprus, 
at least in classical literature, viz. its association as birth place and favoured 
resort of the goddess Aphrodite. It is worth stressing that this association will not 
in itself have made Cyprus seem normal; major Greek deities tend to have 
somewhat (or extremely) marginal places of origin (in reality and myth) and 
relentless literary reference to the "Cyprian Goddess" will, if anything, have 
conferred an air of fantasy and eccentricity upon the island. The development of 
the Adonis association will have exacerbated this and added an element of 
impropriety, especially in the eyes of those whose reaction to Athenian women 
celebrating the Adonia resembled that displayed in Aristophanes. 163 Finally, it is 
notable that the best-attested of the Greek Cypriot colonisation stories (Teucer's 

162 cf. Tamassos as source of Atalante apples (Ovid Met. 10.644). 

163 Peace 420, Lysist. 387f. (Furley 1988 discerns an extraordinary, "protest" Adonis festival 
in the latter text.) Cratin. 15K = 17 KA ("I wouldn't even ask him to be choregus for the 
Adonia") also evinces disdain. E.Will (April 1994 Transeuphratene conference) has sugge- 
sted that prostitutes and/or slaves were the carriers of Adonis into Aegean Greece, which 
will have done little for his respectability, though the memory of this may have been 
wearing off by the late fifth c. (One should be wary of any too simplistic association 
between Evagoras- Athens political links and the upsurge in Athenian literary and iconogra- 
phic attestation of Adonis (and of Aphrodite) after c.425. There are wider factors at work 
here.) - Hermitage 108k, a Kertsch vase eccentrically combining a typical late 5th c. 
Aphrodite / Adonis scene with Teucer, Tecmessa and Eurysaces may reflect the Cypriot 
association (Herniary 1986: 409; Zervourdaki 1968: 66), though to an Athenian viewer 
Eurysaces, son of Ajax, would perhaps have connoted hero-cult in Melite/Attica and the 
founder of the genos Salaminion (Ferguson 1938), and Plato's Adonis, where Adonis is son 
of Cinyras rather than Phoenix (Hesiod) or Theias of Assyria (Panyassis) is the first ^written 
attestation. (Matthews 1974: 120f finds uncompelling earlier hints in schol.Town. 11.1 1.20 
and 758F7.) This version (which involved incest) became standard and appeared in a post- 
Euripidean tragedy which was performed at Aegae on the day of Philip II's murder (ct. 
Snell, TGF ii Adespota 5d). It is not to be seen as a version designed to move Adonis trom 
a Phoenician or (As)syrian context to a Greek one; rather it shows that Cyprus was exotic 
enough to be an alternative oriental venue. 


Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

D. Ethnicity 


foundation of Salamis) 164 involves an oecist who is not only exiled but half- 
barbarian - and specifically half-Trojan. 165 

(ii) There are several phenomena which tend to set Cyprus apart. 

(a) The personal nomenclature of Greek Cyprus distinctively includes many 
names containing the element "kypros" (Stasicyprus, Cyprothemis and so forth' 
for a longer list cf. Neumann 1990) as though to assert an identification with the 

(b) There was a certain (as an ordinary Greek might think) quasi-homeric 
conservatism about the island (Snodgrass 1988: 18f). War-chariots continued in 
use for example into the fifth century (Crouwel/Tatton-Brown 1988: 83). 166 The 
Greek bronze age and archaic Cyprus are the main non-Homeric locales for the 
slaughter of animals at tombs (Boardman & Kurtz 1 97 1 : 1 86). The two phenome- 
na come together when chariots and war-horses appear in archaic "royal" burials 
at Salamis (Coldstream 1977: 34 Iff), and it has been suggested that the appearan- 
ce of model horses in later tombs is a conscious cheap substitute for the practice 
(Monloup 1985: 100). Royal funerals were also marked by ritual armed dances 
(schol.Pindar Pythians 2.127; schol.T Iliad 23.130) which must have struck 
republican Greek observers as eccentric. Monarchy was the political form of all 
the island's states and sometimes, perhaps often, these monarchs combined 
secular and religious functions. The princes and princesses of the blood-royal 
were given the titles anax and anassa; and Isocrates could be moved to envisage 
a deceased king as worthy of deification (cf. above p.64). The standard sanctuary 

164 Pind.^m.4.46 (c.473) (Telamoniadas Teukros rules (aparchei) Cyprus and Oinona [« 
Aegma]) .Aesch.Pm.895 (472) refers to Attic Salamis as metropolis of Cypriot Salamis. 
fcunp.// e / 68ff (413) has Teucer found Salamis after being exiled by Telamon because of 
the late of Ajax (cf. schol.Pi.Atem. 4.76, Lycophr.450f). This was the story in Sophocles 
/ eukros (produced before the second version of Aristophanes* Clouds: cf. fr. 578 Radt) and 
perhaps of Aeschylus' SalaminiaL In Soph.A/a* 1019f Teucer anticipates being driven into 
exile by Telamon - nothing is said here about Cyprus but it is surely presumed. See also 
Marm Par A26 (when Demophon ruled Athens), Lycophron 450f (scholiasts say T. married 
Eue, daughter of Kypros, and fathered Asteria), Strab.682. 
to 1. Teucer was son of Hesione, sister of Priam, and therefore half-Trojan, and open to 
suspicion of treachery: at least this was the story from 5th c. on, as found in Sophocles 
i eukros (esp. fr.579ab), Ajax 434f, 1013f, 1262,1299f (in which play Teucer's barbarian 
character ,s a quite highlighted topic), Xen.Cv«.1.9, Lycophr.452. He uses a bow, which 
marks him as foreign. Compare ARV 592 (3 bis) = Corbett 1961: P 1.33 = London 1961.7- 

1 \ uTu V\ ta PaintCr (470/460 BCE > showin g A J ax ^d Teucer departing for war 
watched by Telamon and Telamon's wife. Teucer is identified by the fact that he is both 
aressed as foot soldier (with hoplon) and has a bow case. (Homer seems not to have this 
perception except in //. 8.284). 2. It is significant that (i) Teukros corresponds to the 
leucrians of Troad, of whom Gergithes are the remnants according to Hdt.5.122, 7.43 and 
W ciearchus knows of connection with Gergithes of Troad, via the Gerginoi of Salamis 
(one ot whom, a descendant of the original Teucer-led colonists of Salamis, founded 
inn? / '" Tr ° a f } - Chavane 1978 P ro P e 'ly stresses Teucer's ambiguous status. - Bikai 
w : 1 s P eculates abo "t the eventual development of Phoenician foundation myths 

1 66 1 f LT^ T T S ° f Cypd0t CUieS in the Tr °J an War era. 

100 640.30 = Anth.Lyr. 2.176 Diehl described Paphians as peltophoroU i.e. not hoplites. 

type continued throughout to be the (open) temenos - often rural (Wright 1991) - 
stocked with hordes of terracotta and limestone votary statues of a generally non- 
Greek appearance in terms e.g. of dress and perhaps having something of the 
character of family cult-places (Senff 1993: 81). Although there are sanctuaries 
on the acropolis of Soloi and a temple in the Paradisotissa valley 1.5 km. west of 
Vouni which can be seen as Cypriot variants on the temple in antis (but cf. Reyes 
1994: 133f)> the Athena temple on Vouni's acropolis had Greek roof antefixes 
(Collombier 1975: 165) and there are possible hints in Ionic capitals from Citium 
and Paphos (Maier 1994: 304), the "Greek temple" really made little headway as 
a cult place or an architectural language. (One may contrast the developing taste 
for such language among non-Greek dynastic areas of Anatolia.) 

(c) The divinities worshipped in (Greek) Cypriot cult places, even when 
assimilated to "standard" Greek deities, could take on odd forms: the aniconic 
Paphian Aphrodite / Astarte is a familiar example, but there were other less 
exotic, but still distinctive pieces of Cypriot divine representation. However 
much one might "simplify" the background of the so-called Ba'al Hammon 
figures (for which cf. Buchholz 1991), they are an iconographic peculiarity of 
Cyprus. More generally "Cypriot deities of the classical period are not exactly 
identified with Greek equivalents, even when written evidence provides us with 
[Greek] names" for them (Yon 1991b: 302). It is, of course, true that artistic 
influence tended to soften the alien effect as the classical period progressed (cf. 
Senff 1993: 79 on "Heracles" figures). But the inter-relation between this and the 
state of mind of the Cypriot worshipper is hard to discern. 

(d) There is surprisingly little sign of contact between Cypriots (even Cypriot 
rulers) and the great sanctuaries and festivals of the metropolitan Greek world. 
Although (cultural) funeral games were held in fourth century Cyprus for Evago- 
ras - and one might wonder about the contexts in which Cypriots sang the praises 
of Cinyras (Pindar Pythian 2.25) 167 - 1 can find no evidence of Cypriot participa- 
tion in the Great Games of Greece in classical period or indeed during any part of 
the era of independent kingdoms. Nicocreon did donate prizes to Argos (Kaibel 
846), and the Nemean festival heralds did visit late fourth century Cyprus. But the 
earliest Cypriot victors in the Olympic Games are of third century date (Moretti 
1953: 86; Moretti 1957: 594, 611, 922-3, 925-6, 928). Similarly we do not know 
of any interaction with Delos until the gifts of Pnytagoras and Nicocreon of 
Salamis (numerous references) and of Androcles of Amathus (gold crown for 
Delos in 313; IG xi.2.135, 161, 203, 205, 209); and in the case of Delphi all one 
can quote from the Persian era is Euelthon's incense burner (Herodotus 4.162 - 
was it, incidentally, "remarkable" because of notably oriental design?) and Ni- 
cotics* four-antlered stag (Aelian NA 11.40). 168 

167 Molyneux 1985 merely postulates skolia. Woodbury 1978 denied that songs /poems were 
involved at all. 

168 Other Cypriot items in Delphi are early: two seventh c. "Idalion" shields (Herzsprung type): 
Lerat 1980 (comparable with examples of similar date from Idalion and Koukll ^ res P; ™> 
rot Chipiez 1885: 869 fig.626 and Karageorghis 1963:265), Amandry 1944/5 56 (1«) <«n 
c), Rolley & Masson 1971: 295 (7th c. with syllabic inscribed dedication of Hermaios). 






Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

(e) More generally, Cyprus was, of course, like other parts of the eastern 
Mediterranean, was open to Greek artistic influence and import in the Persian era 
- as long before, but perhaps more so (cf. Tatton-Brown 69, 81) and even in e.g. 
Citian-dominated Idalion (Senff 1993: 74). Greek, and eventually predominantly 
Attic, pottery comes in throughout the period - with some ups and downs, it is 
true, but probably largely because of the pattern of political and military distur- 
bances in the region. A new Ionian influenced style is evident in some art 
products from the later sixth century onwards and there is talk of a fresh wave of 
Greek artistic influence in the votive statuary of even rural sanctuaries in the 
early fourth century (it has even been seen as a product of Evagoran hellenism: cf. 
Herniary 1989a: 196; Yon 1981: 53) and in the design of funerary monuments 
(Senff 1993: 74). But at the outset at least Greek influence was liable to produce 
Cypriot objects with a greco-ionian veneer (e.g. the Lefkoniko statue in Markoe 
1987 [510/500 BCE], with its decidedly un-Greek hat). And acceptance of Greek 
artistic mores had its limits. For example, marble statuary is pretty rare, whether 
imported or made locally (perhaps only some ten items). 169 Indeed marble is rare 
in all contexts: among inscribed dedicatory monuments only four items come 
immediately to hand (oddly three are dedications by Phoenicians and the fourth 
by a man with what appears to be an Egyptian patronymic). 170 No doubt geologi- 
cal facts are at the bottom of this, but even factors of conspicuous consumption 
apparently provided no impetus to follow metropolitan practice. 

(f) There is another very striking oddity. Greek Cyprus could boast a syllabic 
system continuously in use since before the Greek alphabet was invented, and 
although this was naturally of secondary significance in Citium or Lapethos, was 
not even uniform elsewhere (there being a distinctive Paphian variant, also in use 
at Curium and recently encountered at Dor [Stern 1994: 7], as well as less 
dramatic local variants [Egetmeyer 1993: 154]) and is only attested by numerous 
examples at relatively few places (Bazemore 1992), it seems fair to regard it as a 
potent symbol of Cypriotness. The Greek alphabet took a long time to become 
established and prevail, the latest Cypriot syllabary texts being some (about 20%) 
of the corpus of 300+ texts from late third century Kaphizin in the territory of 
Idalion and a number of inscribed seals from the New Paphos archives which may 
be of mid second century date (Michaelidou-Nikolaou 1993). In the classical 
period the syllabary is what tends to be favoured in "private" contexts, e.g. in the 
labelling of inscribed seals or in the graffiti of early fourth century mercenaries in 
Egypt, one of whom incidentally rejoiced in the wonderfully appropriate name of 
Misthos. (It makes a neat contrast that the collections of inscribed lead sling- 
bullets from the early Hellenistic period are overwhelmingly in alphabetic script, 

169 Native: Marion kouros (Richter 1970: 179); Paphos sphinx wings (Mitford & Iliffe 951: 
29), severe style head (Ridgeway 1970: 58), Boston sphinx head (Vermeule 1976: 17), 
Salamis woman head (Karageorghis & Vermeule 1964: 8), two Amathus heads (Herniary 
1983). Imported: Tamassos Chatsworth head (470/450), Lapethos kouros head (470/460), 
youth's head from Paphos Aphrodite sanctuary (480/70). 

170 ICS 220 (Baalram), ICS 215-216, 1.Kour. 26 = ICS 182. 

D. Ethnicity 


though I suppose the inscribers do not have to be Cypriots. 171 ) In the labelling of 
what might be called public badges, i.e. in coin legends, the Greek alphabet did 
make some headway within the Persian period, but only gradually. Evagoras was 
the first to use it, but only digraphically, and Salaminian coins are still digraphics 
in time of Nicocles (i.e. till the 350s). Stasioecus of Marion was still using 
digraphics, though with standardized Greek morphology in the syllabary and 
with the ethnic in alphabetic script, in c.330-312. Timarchus of Paphos (350/325) 
behaved similarly and it was only his son Nicocles who went over exclusively to 
the Greek alphabet. Alphabetic writing in other forms of public written text 
follows the same pattern. There is a fifth century public digraphic inscription 
mentioning Evagoras from Salamis (Salamine 4.81f; Salamine 13.14 no.17) and 
as early as c.385 it can even happen at Citium, a dedicatory text of prince 
Baalman, in Phoenician, Cypriot syllabary and Greek alphabet (in that order). 
But late in the Persian period kings will still only utter at best digraphically 
(dedications by Androcles of Amathus, Nicocles of Paphos and Stasicrates of 
Soloi). The same is largely true of private individuals (and some exceptions are 
certainly funerary epitaphs of non-Cypriots). 172 Detienne 1991: 56-7 regards the 
maintenance of the syllabary as of a piece with avoidance of public documentati- 
on (assuming it was not done on wood: ICS p.265f, Masson 1988: 127) and 
monarchic conservatism. Whatever one makes of that, it certainly a phenomenon 
which, like the others surveyed here, makes it reasonable to postulate a fair 
degree of national consciousness among Greek Cypriots. Any sense of being 
different from "metropolitan" Greeks will not necessarily (or not necessarily 
always) have worked in favour of friendly assimilation with non-Greek Cypriot 

171 SEG 27.966, 28.1303, 29.1577, 1581, 30.1606; Nikolau 1969/70; Astrom & Nikolaou 
1980: 29f. 

172 For non-royal use of the Greek alphabet, however cf. 

- Golgoi (mid 6th c): ICS 260 (GA/CS), the Karyx stele/epitaph 

- Golgoi (5th a): ICS 302 / Masson 1971a: 327 #8 (single PN) 

- Idalion (mid 6th c): Masson 1971b: 449 (E.Berlin Mi 8526/130) 

- Marion (4th a): AJA 65.93 (GA epitaph) 

- Marion (6th c): ICS 164 (GA/CS) - epitaph of infant (kasikenata/kasignetas). But if, 
as has been claimed, this is inscribed in the Cnidian alphabet (cf. Hornblower 
1982:15n.76), it is not pertinent here. 

- Curium (4th c): ICS 182, GA/CS dedication to Demeter and Kore. 

- Paphos (4th a): ICS 83 (GA/CS), funerary epigram. 

- Pyla: Masson 1966: 20 (GA dedication of Mnasias Pnytilou). 

- Tamassos (late 4th c): Mitford 1961a: 138 (37), metrical epitaph of woman fromElaea 
in Aeolis 

- SEG 28.1302, 4th c. dedication by a Cretan 

- Sarepta (Phoenicia): Daly 1980 (GA/CS); Masson 1982, 45. The date may be post- 
Alexandrian Qa . 

- Abydos: GA graffitto of Stasioecus of Salamis (6/5th c. [ICS p.356, Nikolaou 1986. 
356; Collombier 1975: 48] or 4th c. [Salamine II]). The graffito of Onasimos Salamini- 
os (Pedrizet & Lefebvre 531) is Hellenistic. 

- Karnak: ICS 427 (GA/CS): Philocreon Timaos Salaminios (4th c.) 

- Karnak: Masson 1958: 93; ICS p.381 (GA). Timagoras Petronos Lednos 


■ =«« 



; ik 
\ in. 

\ it* 










Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

populations - especially if metropolitan Greeks were seen as apt on occasion to 
treat the whole island undifferentiatedly as "barbarian" or marginal. 

3. Talk of writing systems leads one to the case of Amathus. In Amathus (and 
occasionally elsewhere 173 ) the syllabary was used to notate not Greek but a so-far 
unidentified eteocypriot language. 174 Pseudo-Scylax labelled the city autochtho- 
nous, in the way that he labelled Citium and Lapethos Phoenician (and all inland 
cities "barbarian"), and it seems clear that the place laid other claims to special 
identification with the island's oldest history. (Greek lexicographers duly quote 
some words of Amathusian or "old Cypriot" language,) The female goddess 
identified with Aphrodite by other Greeks since Homeric times was not so 
denominated in Cyprus until the (late) fourth century. 175 Instead she was various- 
ly known as Anassa (Paphos), Paphia (Golgoi, Chytroi) and Golgia (Idalion, 
Arsos). But in Amathus she rejoiced in the title Kypria. In like, but reverse, 
fashion there was a tradition that the whole island had once been called Amathou- 
sia. 176 There is also the matter of the Ur-King of Cyprus, Cinyras, the donor of a 
fine cuirass to Agamemnon in Iliad 1 1.20 and a man of proverbial, Midas-like 
wealth in various post-Homeric texts. 177 As tends to happen with such figures 
various claims were made upon him. Cinyras was the ktilos ("flock-leader" - or 
[sexual] pet) of Aphrodite, 178 and the priest-kings of Paphos accordingly claimed 
to be Kinyrads (see n.151). He was also beloved of Apollo, another deity 
prominent in south-western Cyprus, for example at Curium where (eventually at 
least) there was a foundation story which replaced the Argive colonizer with a 
son of Cinyras (Stephanus of Byzantium s.v. Kourion). One version of the 

173 Golgoi, ICS 270, 291, 295, 296, ?298 with ICS p.86 & Masson 1968: 27, 28; 1971: 325-6; 
Paphos, ICS 13, 14 (?) and p.87, 102; Curium, ICS 183 = IK 27; (?) Citium, ICS 258 + 
RDAC 1971: 49f; Abydos, ICS 338; and even on a dedication discovered in Rhodes: 
Nikolaou 1980. 

174 Cypriot syllabary (in Greek) starts on 4th c. coins and perhaps on syllabary/eteocypriot 
bilingual coins (Masson 1988b: 129; but cf. Masson 1989: 167), Greek alphabetic inscrip- 
tions not till late classical (ICS 196; Chroniques 1988: 858), even though the kings have 
Greek names. 

IS pi : lC A S 234 (Chytroi) ' LAmath *66 = BCH 1982: 235f (Androkles of Amathus). 

176 Plin.AW 5.129; Steph.Byz. s.v. Kypros; Eratosthenes' Amathousia (cf. Hesych., Suda s.v. 
Rhoikou krithopompia). 

Ill Tyrt.12, PlatZ*g.660C, PLAtem.8.28f. In Alcman 3.71 (Page) Kinyra kharis is the descrip- 
tion of an exotic hair oil. The claim that he invented tiles (Plin.NH 8.195) is ingeniously 
reinterpreted by Baurain 1981b as a reference to the introduction of slave-prisons for forced 
labour in copper mines. - On Cinyras cf. Brown 1965, Kapera 1972, Dugand 1978: 92f, 
Loucas-Durie 1989, Bikai 1991. The story of his relationship with Agamemnon and non- 
participation in the Trojan War is elaborated in Apollod.3.9, Eustath. ad //. 11.20. The 
model ships which he allegedly contributed in fulfilment of a promise to supply a fleet of 
ships have been connected with the penchant for clay ship-models in Cyprus (Kapera) or the 
ship-borne LBA ceramic trade (Morris 1992: 8) or the distinctive Cypriot terracotta sculp- 
ture radition in general (Reyes 1994). 

178 For Cinyras sources see nn. 30, 177, 183. The association of Cinyras, Apollo and music is 
hardly unconnected with the name's resemblance to e.g. Hbr. kinnor* lyre. In Strab.16.2.18 
Cinyras has a palace in Byblos. 

D. Ethnicity 


genealogy of Evagoras had Teucer marry a daughter of Cinyras (Paus. 1.3.2); in 
the course of the fifth century a connection with Adonis had been excogitated 
(see above); and at some date unknown but perhaps classical Cinyras was 
provided with an Iranian-named parent, Pharnace. 179 Amathus may have had a 
special connection, however. This is only certainly explicit, though it is explicit, 
in Theopompus 1 15 F 103, which tells of "the manner in which the Greeks with 
Agamemnon drove out those with Cinyras, of whom the Amathousians are the 
remnants", but Stephanus of Byzantium knew of "Amathusa" as mother of 
Cinyras and there is also a tantalizing possibility (cf. Baurain 1981a) that the 
Neo-Assyrian list of vassal kings of Cyprus was supposed (though did not 
because of a textual corruption in the original master copy) to refer to a city called 
Kinyreia which could well correspond to Amathus. (This admittedly leaves the 
question of why the name was changed.) 

If there was strongly developed Cypriot national consciousness anywhere in 
the island it should have been in Amathus. Moreover because in Amathus that 
national consciousness was allied to distinctive claims of autochthony not just to 
the geographical fact of insularity, it may have had a divisive aspect, targeted at 
the other major ethnic communities and perhaps particularly at the Greeks, since 
they were the first "comers-in", the displacers of autochthonous domination and 
perhaps the more irritating purveyors of a supposedly superior culture. 

In the light of this I am inclined to think that the facts that Amathus (i) was 
alone in resisting Ionian and Salamis-inspired rebellion against Persia in 498, (ii) 
resisted Evagoras' surely explicitly "Hellenic" ambitions, (iii) has a distinctively 
large Phoenician 180 and Egyptian showing in its cultural profile (the latter per- 
haps chiefly a Phoenician paraphenomenon) and (iv) appears to have been a 
prosperous place throughout fifth and fourth centuries are not accidental. 181 On 
the contrary it is a case history which discloses that it is not simply ridiculous to 
think Cypriot politics and international relations to have had some ethnic compo- 
nent. Since Amathus is also a major find-spot for imported western pottery 
(contrast the dominance of the fine ware market at Soloi or Paphos by local 
products), it is also a case-history which illustrates the unreliability of such 
material as an indicator of politico-cultural attitudes - or at least the need for 
delicacy in its use. 182 . And it may, thirdly, be a case-history which illustrates the 
effects of politics upon mythology. In Homer Iliad 1 1.20 it is surely implied that 

H9 Apollod. 3.14.3, Hesych.s.v, Kinyras, Suda s.v.v. katagerasai, Sardanapalous. Or is it 
conceivably a Seleucid-inspired idea? Apamea was allegedly once called Pharnace, and 
Seleucus* wife Apama was perhaps a descendant of Pharnabazus, son of Pharnaces. 

180 Karageorghis 1991: 959f. 

181 Amathus prosperity: Herniary 1987; Petit 1991a: 177. A new palace was created just after 
500: Chronique 1988: 873,1989: 909. . . 

lg 2 A taste for appropriating cultural goods or models can coexist with non-assimilation 
(consider e.g. the makers of pseudo-Attic "Philisto-Arabian" coinage). It may even help 
underline diversity. T.Petit has suggested (April 1994 Transeuphratene conference) that the 
example of Athens stimulated Amathusian promotion of autochthony as a political totem. 
This might be so; it would not diminish the intra-insular significance of the totem. 

i;.. i. 










Chapter 1 . Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

Cyprus was too far away to get directly involved in the Trojan War and that 
Cinyras' gift of a fine cuirass to his guest-friend Agamemnon was quite accepta- 
ble. (Cinyras is also apparently an uncomplicated "good" example in Tyrtaeus.) 
But Alcidamas (Odysseus 20f - a fourth century text, even if not necessarily by 
Alcidamas: Blass 1887: 359f) takes it that Cinyras was being maliciously evasive 
(cf. Apollodorus Epitome 3.9), and Theopompus' report of his eventual displace- 
ment by "those with Agamemnon" (1 15 F 103) assumes the same view - thereby 
providing a story parallel with Evagoras' displacement of Abdemon (Shrimpton 
1993: 91). Evidently a different and hostile valuation of Cinyras has come into 
existence, at a date which appears to be no earlier than the mid-fifth century. 183 It 
is very tempting to see this as reflecting critical contemporary assessments of 
Cypriot / Amathusian behaviour (assessments with an ethnic component); and it 
is interesting that at just the same period a more than vaguely improper story 
connecting Adonis and Cinyras was (arguably) being devised (n.163). One may 
add that it would make sense if the perception first encountered in Lucian 
(Rhetorum Praeceptor 8), according to which Cinyras exemplifies effeminacy 
and habrosyne like Sardanapallus and Agathon, originated in the later classical 
period. (I should add explicitly that Reyes' inclination - 1994: 13f — to discount 
"eteocypriots" as a significant factor even in archaic Cyprus does not impress me 
greatly. I would rather see the phenomena he notes - that eteocypriot attestations 
and inscriptions are mostly of later classical date - as a confirmation that the 
sense of differentiation was apt to increase.) 

4. Moving back to Greeks and Phoenicians, I offer the following further 

(a) It is a simple matter of human nature that, if ethnic distinctions exist, any 
intrinsically non-ethnic grounds for rivalry or dispute will readily acquire ethnic 

(b) Belief in an ethnic overtone to conflicts does not have to be bolstered by 
e.g. claims that a fall in Attic pottery imports in the earlier fifth century shows 
diminished hellenisation. Maier 1985: 37 is polemicizing against nothing. Cont- 
rariwise, attempts to undermine the picture simply by saying that Greek goods 
came into Cyprus in the second half of the fifth century in good quantities also 
miss the point, especially if what Isocrates is evidence for is really a perception of 
the place, not an economic reality. In any case, Salamis is not the top place for 
western ceramic imports; that honour belongs to Marium and Amathus; and there 
is also a bigger "Phoenician presence" in the Persian period as a whole (Bondi 
1990: 260, 265). 

1 83 Cinyras' lasting divinely-bestowed olbos is highlighted in Pi.Atem.8. 1 8f (c. 459), a poem for 
an Aeginetan which starts with praise of Aeacus and then speaks of Ajax's suicide. In 
context, reference to the Cypriot king is very likely to evoke Teucrid colonisation of 
Cyprus; this is only tolerable if Pindar presumes a version in which Cinyras is not ejected by 
the new-comers. One may add that in Pythian 2 (c. 468) Cinyras is an implicit parallel for 
Hieron and not tainted by the associations of sexual rape and (perhaps) temple prostitution 
which attach to other parts of the poem. 

D. Ethnicity 


(c) Nor do we need to "improve" the argument by contradicting recorded 
facts, as e.g. Stylianou 1985: 421 does in insisting that (despite Herodotus' 
evidence) Citium, as a Phoenician city, will not have joined the rebellion of 498. 
On the other hand Citium' s rebellion on that occasion should not be generalised 
into a proof that Phoenicians are not pro-Persian - not least because the whole 
point of the argument is not to generalise but to recognise the possibility of 
ethnically oriented politics. (If Kraay was right in identifying an early Citian 
coinage inscribed in Cypriot Syllabary, of course, the city went through a period 
of rule by a Greek dynasty and her behaviour in 498 ceases to be interestingly out 

of line. 184 ) 

(d) Isocrates' contrast between the "barbarized" or savage (67) state of 
Salamis under the Phoenicians and Evagoras' rehellenization may be exaggera- 
ted; and the extreme statement of it in Evagoras is of course very much hindsight, 
in being composed not before the late 370s. But is it safe to regard it as quite 
spurious or at the best entirely a perspective dating from after Evagoras' "Helle- 
nic" services in the 390s war with Sparta, hailed as such in the Athenian decree 
honouring him on the occasion of his protege Conon's triumphant return to the 
city in 393? Nobody is inclined actually to deny that Salamis fell under the rule of 
Phoenicians in the fifth century and that Evagoras mounted a successful coup 
d'etat to restore what was claimed to be Teucrid - one might say Homeric - rule. 
It passes way beyond reasonable scepticism to maintain that this achievement 
was not bolstered with ethnic slogans at the time. The use of the Greek alphabet 
on coins (a novelty for Cyprus) is not a small matter; and anyone looking at plates 
of Salaminian coins in Hill 1904 or Babelon 1893 will surely feel that, with the 
disappearance of the ram and ankh - accompanied sometimes by crescent and 
solar disk and (according to Vermeule 1974b: 152) using an Egyptian model for 
the animal - the city's issues take on a markedly more hellenic and less exotic 
apparance. 185 Hermary and Yon are prepared to perceive evidence of hellenism in 
art products corresponding to Evagoras' period (though, of course, hellenization 
of art style occurred at Citium-Salines too); and the fact that he was later opposed 
by Eteocypriots (Amathus), Phoenicians (Citium) and Greeks (Soloi) does not 
{pace Seibert 1976: 11) prove a great deal; nor does the fact that the original 
usurpation did not result in Evagoras' exile. The same reaction is surely appro- 

184 Kraay 1974: 307, For the coins cf. ICS pp.220f, Dikaios 1953: 158 (nos.94-103), Babelon 
965f. Previous attributions include Soloi and Golgi. Kagan 1994: 32f wonders about 
Curium. - Grainger 1991: 26 assumes that Citium did not revolt in the 340s, but does not 
explain why. 

185 Evagoras II - who also issued "satrapal" head coins - reverted to ram and ankh, which hints 
that he felt the same about the "colour" of pre-Evagoras I devices. - A similar sharp visual 
break occurs at Paphos when Timocharis and his successors abandon images which at least 
could be construed as eastern (though use of the Greek alphabet is there delayed until 
Timarchos). Nor is it unreasonable to say that Idalion's sphinx and lotus (sometimes 
accompanied by an ankh) have a visually eastern flavour, even if the sphinx resembles 
Chiot models (Destrooper-Georgiades [1993 ASPEP Table Ronde]). That an eastern image 
may be used by Aegean or mainland Greeks does not strip the image of oriental associations 
or deprive its use by east Mediterranean Greeks of all significance. 

\ <!> 

; :*r 

! la 

\ V 

\ o 

: 3 

X / 


Chapter 1. Cyprus Before and Under the Achaemenids 

priate with the conflict between Citium and Idalion: and the fact that Idalion 
having suffered actual annexation never recovered its autonomy is an uncertain 
indication that the population of the city actually regarded Phoenicians and 
Cypriot Greeks as interchangeable ethnic groups - especially when one has 
regard to what sounds like the rather extreme character of the conquest of Idalion 
(cf. Chronique 1988). 

(e) The detached attitude of the crowd at the time of Evagoras' coup does not 
demonstrate that Salaminians were indifferent to the distinction between Evago- 
ras' and Abdemon's ethnicity. 

(f) The sale of Tamassos to Pumiathon of Citium: one can say that this is a 
sign that ethnic matters are not an impediment to such a transfer from Greek to 
Phoenician rule (Stylianou 1985: 483). One can also note that the (Greek) seller 
found it most congenial to retire to Eteocypriot Amathus - and that Pumiathon 
displayed more hostility to Alexander than other Cypriot rulers to judge from his 
later loss of Tamassos (Nicolaou 1976: 325f; CIS 1.10, 11, 92; Plutarch Alexan- 
der 32). Of course, this might simply have been the sour grapes of one who had 
arguably controlled a quarter of Cyprus before the greco-macedonian adventurer 
came on the scene (Grainger 1991: 16). In any case, we have very little idea of 
what the "ordinary" inhabitant of Tamassos thought of it all - if indeed (s)he 
thought the same at all times and in all moods. 

(g) Dion 1993 uses assumptions about greco-phoenician mutual tolerability 
to support the claim that Kittim could happily be used for all of Cyprus. Personal- 
ly I fail to see that the behaviour of Semitic language speakers in privileging the 
name of a Phoenician city of Cyprus proves very much at all. 

(h) Isocrates 3 presents a picture of severe pressure put upon Nicocles in 374/ 
3 and immediately thereafter, including clashes of interest and quarrels with the 
islanders. No ethnic overtone is put on this. But so what? Even in Isocrates 
Evagoras the point is (apparently) "cultural" rather than political - or is expres- 
sed in such terms. The point is that the attitudes assumed in that text are ones 
which make it inevitable that when political clash did exist it would be accompa- 
nied by racist rhetoric. 

(i) From a Great King's point of view it is worth remembering e.g. that 
Phoenicians of the Levant never rebelled against the Achaemenid suzerainty until 
after the middle of the fourth century: this was a better record than Greeks 
managed. 186 

G) At least once the Persians positively sided with a Phoenician Cypriot city 
in its permanent acquisition of the territory of a one-time autonomous city: at 
least we know that the Medes assisted Citium in a siege of Idalion and we know 
that Idalion in due course became part of the realm of the Kings of Citium, and 
even if we do not assent to the view recently expressed by Petit that the two 
occasions are actually the same (with the Idalion tablet actually commemorating 
a Perso-Citian siege which succeeded) we can hardly doubt that the annexation 
was viewed with favour by the Great King. 

186 At least in 475 BCE Phoenician ships seem to have paid less duty in Achaemenid Egypt 
than "Ionian" ones: Yardeni 1994: 70. 

D. Ethnicity 


(k) Darius IPs failure to intervene and suppress Evagoras after his initial 
coup d'etat has been taken to demonstrate the Great King's indifference to ethnic 
issues in Cyprus. But Darius' behaviour does not prove anything about his 
predecessor's attitude to the Phoenician seizure of power in the city three or more 
decades earlier. I am not necessarily maintaining that Artaxerxes I positively 
enjoined Phoenician take-over in Salamis, merely that what tends to be perceived 
as Darius' indifference to Evagoras' arrival on the scene is not a ground for 
inferring anything about Artaxerxes' indifference. At best, if we are correct to 
perceive indifference in either or both cases we should perhaps see this as part of 
a larger Persian tendency to detachment from Cyprus. But perhaps we should 
rather question how far Darius' indifference is a real quantity. Note variously: (i) 
there were other preoccupations at the time; (ii) Evagoras had spent his exile - 
where? Cilicia was his jumping-off point; perhaps he could be thought of (by 
Darius, whatever Artaxerxes' view might have been) as not necessarily any more 
inimical to Persian interests than a Phoenician ruler; (iii) there was no talk of 
mobilizing Cypriot military resources at this juncture - and no talk of any direct 
external military threat to Cypriot stability at the time either; considerations 
which might have moved Artaxerxes to be happy about a Phoenician take-over in 
mid century, perhaps before the final Athenian assault on the island, perhaps a 
little after it but at a time when in the absence (as I believe) of a Peace of Callias 
one could not be sure Athens was no further threat, need not have weighed so 
heavily inc.411. 187 

(1) Finally, one of the most remarkable pieces of new information about 
Persian Cyprus, the discovery that Milkyaton celebrated a victory over Salamis 
(presumably) and the Paphians by erecting a "Greek" tropaion (Yon / Snyczer 
1991), is not a demonstration of the insignificance of Greco-Phoenician distin- 
ctions or a proof that the Citians are in some sense "honorary Greeks". On the 
contrary, it surely discloses ironic exploitation of ethnic differences - particularly 
if, as the editors believe, Milkyaton actually established a new ruling dynasty in 
Citium on the basis of his success in confronting Greek enemies: in such a context 
the last thing one would expect is for him to express assimilation with the 
defeated enemy. 

The desire of later twentieth century historians to eliminate race from their 
conceptual vocabulary no doubt does them credit as human individuals; and the 
spectacle of modern Cyprus will only serve to encourage the hope that it might 
once have been otherwise. 188 But it is an unrealistic optimism, especially when 
dealing with people content, even eager, to deploy the notion "barbarian", and the 
attitude discloses an inclination to political correctness (in most cases avant la 
kttre) which is a yet more dangerous intellectual condition than the love of 
"factoids" of which Maier 1985 complained. 

lg 7 Of course, if the date was after 449 it may have been contemporary with Megabazus* revolt 

m Syria, certainly a distraction. 
188 Kagan 1994: 48 pertinently adverts to current events in former Jugoslavia. 




: m 


! o 






One of the most memorable scenes in Xenophon's Hellenica - memorable 
enough to have been subject to "plagiarism" by Theopompus - is that in which, 
through the good offices of Apollophanes of Cyzicus, Agesilaus meets the satrap 
Pharnabazus and attempts to undermine his loyalty to Artaxerxes II; and one of 
the memorable passages within this scene is Pharnabazus' lament about Spartan 
ingratitude. Despite his services in 4 1 2-AOA, he says, "I cannot even get a meal in 
my own country unless, like wild animals, I come across something that you may 
have left behind. My father left me beautiful houses and paradeisoi full of trees 
and wild animals, and these were a delight to me. Now all the trees are cut down, 
all the houses burned..." (4.1.31). This passage picks up one a couple of pages 
earlier in which Xenophon describes the scene at Dascyleium, where Pharnaba- 
zus had his residence. "All around the place there were numbers of large villages, 
very well stocked with provisions, and also some very beautiful wild-animals, 
kept either in enclosed paradeisoi or in open country. A river full of all kinds of 
fish ran past the palace and there were also plenty of birds to be caught by those 
who knew how to go about it" (4.1.1 1). The mutual reinforcement of the two texts 
and the emotive setting of the first of them probably serve to make Dascyleium 
the most familiar, even the paradigm, example of paradeisoi for most students of 
classical literature and historiography. The purpose of this chapter is to give an 
objective account of the whole range of evidence about the characteristics of the 
parks and gardens of which Pharnabazus' ancestral establishment provides one 


So far as Iranian phenomena are concerned, the focus will be entirely Achaeme- 
nid (with only brief references to Sasanid or later material). But, if only because 
at least one historian (Fauth 1979) has declared that the paradeisos was an 
Assyrian invention, it will be necessary to make some reference to relevant 
material - i.e. to secular parks / gardens and hunting establishments - from the 
pre-Achaemenid near east. 1 Such material, of course, only appears intermittently. 

1 Lackenbacher 1990: 95 similarly remarks that the gardens of Nineveh *'ont du servir de 
modele aux jardins perses, les fameux 'paradis' de l'Antiquite' classique". - For temple 
gardens cf. n.118. 

A. Pre-Achaemenid Material 


Pharaonic Egypt provides a striking series of illustrations of non-royal gar- 
dens from New Kingdom tombs. 2 These are generally places of relatively modest 
extent (though they can be part of a larger working estate as in the Palace of 
Merire) and are characterised by a generally symmetrical layout of trees, vines 
and flowers and by the presence of a pond or ponds as a focus of the garden 
design. The pattern actually went back as early as the third or fourth dynasty - 
when a text describes the villa of Meten which had a square hectare of walled 
garden containing palms, figs, acacia and ornamental trees, ponds frequented by 
birds, arbours and two vineyards - and no doubt went forward into the Late 
Period and beyond. It is establishments of this sort which figure occasionally in 
the love-song tradition of Egyptian literature as the place of meeting and/or a 
symbol of sexual attraction/activity (the analogy with the biblical Song of Songs 
is obvious); 3 and it was no doubt in such gardens that the flower-growing skills of 
the Egyptians highlighted by a hellenistic Greek author (Callixeinus 627 F 2 = 
Athenaeus 196D) had long been practised, though the texts and pictures tend to 
focus more on garden-trees. (We shall return to this inconcinnity later.) 

Moving east from the Nile Delta there is a scatter of general and located 
references to gardens in the Old Testament. 4 Most famous, naturally, is the 
Garden of Eden, whose description in the Septuagint as paradeisos is responsible 
ultimately for modern "paradise". The actual characteristics of Eden in Genesis 
2-3 are modest enough; it is a place with a stream which (i) contains "all kinds of 
beautiful trees" producing "good fruit" and animals and birds and (ii) is a suitable 
place for God to take an evening stroll. Ezekiel 28.13 adds the idea of a mountain, 
but has moved firmly into the realm of metaphor (witness the accompanying idea 
that the place was full of precious gems) and the same author's later description 
of a cedar as more beautiful than any tree in Eden (31.8) is far more in line with 
the basic description. One need hardly add (a) that the contrast between the cool, 
watered ambience of Eden and the harsh outer world into which Adam and Eve 
are expelled to scrape a living tilling the land mirrors a commonplace contrast of 
the ancient near eastern landscape and (b) that none of the other gardens of the 

On Egyptian gardens in general see e.g. Gothein 1928: 3f; Gallery 1978; Moens 1984; 
Hugonot 1989, 1992; Eyre 1994, ANEP 95, 1 15, 156. 

Fox 1985 deals with the material extensively. The most pertinent items are P.Anastasi 1 
(ANET478), P.Turin 1966 (Fox nos.28-30), P.Harris 500 nos. 3, 8 D-E, 9, 17-19. Gardens 
also play an important role in Egyptian images of the afterworld. 

GeneralXam.2.6, /sai.1.8, 58.1 1, Job 8.16, Jerem. 29.4f, 31.12, DeutA 1.10, Amos 9.14. It 
emerges that gardens are places with (artificial) water-supply and their creation is a 
predictable part of settling somewhere. The pleasure one would be expected to take in one is 
reflected per contrarium when the destruction of Jerusalem is described as the Lord 
necking his own domain like a garden (Lam.2.6). Specific locations. Jerusalem: II Kings 
21.18 (Manasseh's burial place), DeutM.lO, NumbM.5 (an orderly and fruitful royal 
garden), Eccl.2Af (Solomon's gardens and pardesim), Jerem.39A, 52.7, II Kings 25.4 
(King's Garden). See Shilo 1979. Samaria: I Kings 21.1-2 (Naboth's vineyard to be turnea 
wo a vegetable garden). Jezreel: II Kings 9.27 (road of Beth-Haggan = House or tne 

i I , .i : 

■ i ■ \[ 









X / 


Chapter 2. The Parks and Gardens of the Achaemenid Empire 

Old Testament are at all obviously of a radically different sort from that used as a 
model for life before The Fall. 

Further east again there is a variety of evidence from Babylonian and (par- 
ticularly) Assyrian sources. The actual site of an out-of-town riverside garden 
created by Sennacherib is known at Bavian, 60 km. NNE of Mosul on the edge of 
the mountains of Kurdistan. 5 A number of texts describing destructive Assyrian 
military action specifically mentions "gardens" (alias "orchards": the Akkadian 
word is always kiru) as targets. 6 The only specific description in such a context is 
that in the Eighth Campaign Report of Sargon relating to Armenian Ulhu (ARAB 
2.160f). King Rusa had brought water from the Euphrates and irrigated orchards, 
making fruit and grapes as abundant as the rain, planted plane trees were planted 
to provide shade, and established grain-fields and meadows as pasturage for 
animals. When the Assyrians arrived "into his pleasant gardens which adorned 
his city and which were overflowing with fruit and wine like the immeasurable 
downpour of heaven, my fierce warriors rushed." Axes were wielded, fruit was 
brought down. "His great trees, the adornment of his palace, I cut down like 
millet." The trees were collected and burned. "Their abundant crops which is 
garden and marsh [i.e. meadow] were immeasurable I tore up by the root and did 
not leave an ear to remember the destruction. His pleasant fields which were 
spread out like a platter painted in lapis lazuli - the surrounding plain planted to 
grass and habburu, ... like Adad I overwhelmed and made the meadows, the 
support of horses, like ploughland". The interplay of utility and adornment and 
the slight uncertainty about the relationship of flowers (if that is the reference of 
the comment about lapis lazuli) and "gardens" / meadows are points to notice for 
future reference. 7 The ordinary, matter-of-fact garden/orchard also appears, of 
course, in very many purely practical and documentary sources and is a standard 
part of the exploited landscape from Hammurabi onwards, 8 a fact visually sym- 

5 Bachmann 1927. A river-side site within a modest gorge decorated with rock sculpture (cf. 
ARAB 2.331-343 [690 BCE]) and showing what Bachmann saw as evidence of garden- 
planting like that from the Assur akitu-temp\e (cf. n. 1 1 8). Jacobsen and Lloyd 1935: 49 less 
romantically suggest that the holes were left by supports used to assist transport of building 
rocks from an upstream quarry to the nearby site of a dam. 

6 ARAB 1.480, 608, 620, 672, 681, 724, 776, 792, 2.32 and 39 (with Olmstead 1930: 263, 
276) 160f, 164-167, 261-2, 279, SAA iii 41. 

7 In CT 16 46: 183 (an incantation text), however, the lapis lazuli simile is applied to the 
black kiskanu-trte. Landsberger 1967: 164f maintains that the land involved in ARAB 
2.160f is purely utilitarian, and favours the view that the reference to lapis lazuli is more to 
do with the glazed bricks of Assyrian wall -decorations (cf. the ARAB translation quoted 
here, with its reference to a "platter") than with landscape reality. Glazed brick is indeed 
assigned the colour description "lapis lazuir in Wiseman 1952: 30.31-32, 33.31-32 

Assurnasirpal II) and the walls of Khorsabad were predominantly blue (RLA 3.23), but 
Landsberger's principal interest is to demonstrate that uqnu need not be thought of as green 
in the Sargon text rather than actually to establish what aspect of the landscape the text's 
author meant to indicate. 

8 « *i1S L 12 - 7 * 12 ^ 59 ^ 97 > 1 90; SAA i 132, 160, 177, 179; SAA ii 275A, B; SAA v 37, 
52 109, 213, 281 ; SAA vi passim. "Field and orchards" is such a cliche- that in RGD # 9-12, 
H.34f (Postgate 1974a: 79) the scribe wrote it by error for "field and people". The formula- 

A. Pre-Achaemenid Material 


bolised in Sennacherib's quarry scene and verbally reflected in references to the 
gardener in e.g. a programmatic royal text about commodity prices or a poetic 
lament or in the appearance of orchards in texts celebrating in general terms the 
king's success in enhancing the fertility of the land. 9 

Modern interest, however, is apt to focus on texts and images which cast light 
on more imposing establishments. There is Babylonian evidence for "palace 
gardens" in the time of Adad-suma-usur and Naplu-apla-iddina and the rare 
garden commodities offered to temples by Nebuchadrezzar perhaps came from 
special royal gardens, 10 but the bulk of the evidence is Assyrian, and it may be 
useful to list it as objectively as possible, since certain false, or at least qu- 
estionable, assumptions about it have got into the literature. 

(1) Hunting. Four texts refer to something called an ambassu, and this has 
been taken to be the proper designation of a (royal) hunting park. 11 But the 
clearest context is description of ritual, and it is gods who are described as 
entering the ambassu and in one case killing wild bulls there. (The use of the 
ambassu as a topographical reference point in a Sennacherib text about garden 
creation [below n. 1 1 ] casts no light on its intrinsic nature.) Naturally this could be 
a secondary use of an otherwise secular term, but contemplation of possibly 
cognate words in Hittite and Nuzi texts does not particularly encourage such a 
view, 12 and it seems more prudent to confine our view of Assyrian royal hunting 
to the information in other texts - which reveal among other things that animals 
were collected through the tribute system and that the slaughter of lions, bulls, 
ostriches and the like had a programmatic or ideological content 13 - and images. 
Among the latter Assurbanipal's reliefs in Nineveh North Palace Room C show a 
highly ritualized Lion Hunt, carried out in a temporarily demarcated and denuded 
landscape under the gaze of spectators who stand on a hill near a stele representa- 
tion of the king hunting a lion from his chariot, and centred on a victim which is 
released from a cage. The scenes in Rooms R, S and S' have at least some 
elements of ordinary landscape setting and to that extent seem a little less 

tion of ARAB 2.83, 363 assumes that establishing a city goes together with laying out 
"orchards"; and in Gilgamesh (SBV) I 1 the stereotypical city is one third city, one third 
claypits and one third orchards. Hammurabi: ANET 167 (paras. 27ff). 
Quarry scene: Reade 199 1 : 1 8, 38 (the quarry is surmounted by a landscape of tree-covered 
hills described by Reade as an orchard of figs, pomegranates and pines, but, identified by 
Jacobsen & Lloyd 1935: 33). - Gardener: ARAB 2.948 ("in the midst of my land camels 
weres old for 1 .5 shekels of silver [each] in the market place. The sutammu received camels 
and slaves for his gift, the sherbet vendor (?) [the same] for a cup [of his drink], the gardener 
[the same] for plants [shoots?] which he had selected [?]"). - Gardens as part of royally- 
inspired fertility: ARAB 2.92, 1 19f, 333, 435. - Lament: SAA iii 16.17f. 
BHLT p.64; Iraq 1976: 7 v.2-22; Postgate 1973: 157f ##139-140, 197 #198. 
ABL 366 (Nabu kills bulls in an ambassu); ABL 427 (Adad enters an ambassu); Luckenbill 
1924: 113 viii 116f (gardens located "beside the ambassu"); ARAB 2.397 (the Adad Gate 
sa ambassi at Nineveh). ARAB 2.333 where the word also seems to appear is probably 
corrupt ( C f. CAD s.v.). 

Friedrich 1939: 49f; id. 1935/6: 294; Gordon 1938: 52, 56; Kronasser 1966: 228, 237, 340. 
ARAB 1.247f, 253, 375, 392, 410, 518f, 631, 723, 2.1020-6, ANET 559b (ii), (iii). 




i '<» 

' -3= 

■ # 


84" Chapter 2l The r&ffcs md GardOrtBof the Achaemenid Empire: 

contrived --but where: the^kif^ 

other landscape^ features* and- weemayy still Ifeet that we?are looking at: an entirely 


X aridRoom~VII'in-S~argon^ 

perfectly ordinary humim^ex^ 

out against -a background-of conifers ! 55 

(2-) Hunting' and' Gardemslm 
garden scenes; (a) The; lio^riimting: irr Ninea-eHiNorrtr Palace-Roam S ' is (along 
with reliefs showing: warwrtiiiHam)/}^ 

called Weinlautie aycle,. 16 ' frn thee iippen" registfcrr A'ssurbanipall antf his queem 
recline: and drink: under a: vint&fewerr sett amiciitl alternating: coniferss andl date 
palms; thee middle: re^iste^ha^c^fe^pomeg pick 

grapes arid^Towersan^ 
ardiery; the:bottcm r^ 

and stag; There: are: dearly hims> ofl hunting: withim this cycle; (arche^imctice;: 
not; forexampfe^art^^ 

little further away- fmmn the palace. Certainly/ nothing- which:; could; he callM a 
garden- has any direct- eonnectiom with: hunting:, (ft)) At: KHoisabad; thee Rdarm^II 
hunting scenes off the lbwerr register off two) wallfe off the mami are adj: acentt to a 
series of- slabs iff wtiielfc * processions of liorsemem, the King in; a:chariat anif fcot 
soldier marcfrtuwardfe^ 

& late and adjacent tfa) ai carniifeppliuittaii hill! surmounted! tiw am altar. 117 lit is 

that;, although tfe same conifers, &rmi the backgnoundi to holtr hunting andl 
pmcession;- the tJwocjdes appear to have? ira> otlieir intia?<amnECtibrr.. ((c)) Nanewefc 
Sttfflfc Palace Room: E Iia& one scene where am apparently tame 11cm accompanies 
* figure variously identified; as; priesttormusiciarx against a background: of 'palms; 
^rte^eirtwinedi conifers andl lilies, and anntheir where ax Horn andl lioness mte their 
<Sas£ itt * Simifatr garden setting;;. 1 * Some have? sera t&ia as . air am&ww,&ufc in view 
of tie word?$ dU&ifat&fe status itt is; Best siinply to ncte die difficulty of dhcitfing 

14 feom> (E: &mm m& pil. W-ant Harnett 8t Fanrnmm 19.601: $ (ahe spectators" Ml* &as 
^irirvus t^i. fttam. ft: Eunrett D9Z&: MJilX -XLEE (iio> scenery im the jqume? to and 
faWT' ttte Rumfag mx)l ffiomni $:: Hanrcm E9tf€c: XE.TO-P.1TIT (^Landscape: setting occurs onT? 
6W X&W |feftg$ dHveni into majsl, XOTO Crocks IhndscapiE,, vines,, fete, came fields*.) Kaon* 

jfr; * m Ammil w tsccasionaC rihiail hinting iin anaem! A^abiaa c£. Beestom E94&. 

^^^* :R ^ &B ^D: : 5$«ANEPBa5 = AJfi«i^ B9&7V%7&(;BM M!8829?X: Agenda 
J7 : ;W <^ ^^- Etosmi VEIL: Albeadai B9tfZ: 85-&T;- Laurf L93<fc 1 75tf; Botta & 
fttrttftff £«^S®: Efr U0T7— B 14. 

A4H&tm& 11$^, ^77 ;; o^iu^r jj^, x 

^S^l* ^^^ : ^^ J * Agenda »7:: »W * Bete & Flamfe U34^50>: IT HH4 = Stronach 

i ] 9W; frg.fl 

^^^ K^& »V-XV # Bffncst & Formam I9«at 54^55 One of the priests/m^icians 
» * tatffar ^e^frm ofeatir^ a* fea^ui % BameCD 1967:: 29OT (Calmeyer 1970 

A. Pre-Achaemenid Material 



]1 7 7 

whether the picture shows a zoological pleasure-garden, the store-place for an 
ideologically charged exhibit or simply a temporary home for the animals bet- 
ween acquisition and release into the "arena" depicted in Room C. 19 Whatever 
the answer, the contrast between the animals' lush setting here and the artificial 
emptiness of the arena or, for that matter, the scattered trees of other hunting 
scenes is quite striking: we are in no reasonable sense of the word in a "game- 

(3) Images of Parks and Gardens. In the iconographic material already 
examined we can clearly distinguish between (i) the two garden areas of the 
Weinlaube cycle (the Queen's Garden and the general palace garden according to 
Albenda 1976: 61f) and the lion-garden and (ii) the Khorsabad "parkland". There 
are two further relevant images, both resembling the Khorsabad picture, (a) A 
Sennacherib Nineveh fragment (Layard 1853: 232) shows a small column-fron- 
ted building with trees on its roof (or are they meant to be behind it?), next to a 
scene with various trees watered by canal and laid out both in neat rows and more 
casually. There is also a patch of water containing fish and a crab across which a 
boat ferries animals and in which men swim on inflated animal skins. The context 
of this scene is not now recoverable, (b) A relief in Nineveh North Palace Room 
H. A column-fronted building and a royal stele stand on top of a hill; there is an 
altar just below and the whole hill is covered in trees (cypresses, conifers) and 
vines and cross-cut with streams or canals. There is a patch of brickwork in the 
right-hand side of the scene which may represent an acqueduct. The whole scene 
is immediately adjacent to a triple-walled city of uncertain identification. 20 

(4) Texts about Parks and Gardens. A number of texts from Khorsabad 
(Sargon) and Nineveh (Sennacherib, Esarhaddon) refer to the establishment 
beside the city (Khorsabad) or the palace (Nineveh) of large gardens or parks 
(kirimahu) "like Amanus". 21 The descriptions of the Amanus parks consistently 
represent them as containing all kinds of trees and plants, sometimes further 
characterised as typical of Hittite-land (Sargon) or Chaldaea (Sennacherib) and 
of the mountains, but the only species identification is that in the fullest version 
of Sennacherib's description of the gardens of Nineveh (BM 103000) which 
mentions "wool-bearing trees", i.e. cotton. There is also an Assurbanipal text 
which records a kirimahu "with all sorts of trees and the fruit of SA.SA" at the 




Barnett 1976: 12 sees the scene as a corner of the royal game-park or zoological garden or 
ambassu. For the collecting of animals for people to see cf. already Assurnasirpal (ARAB 

BM 124938-9 = Barnett 1976: XXIII = Barnett & Forman: 1960: 133 = Wiseman 1982: 
pl.XXXIII(a) = Stronach 1990: 173 fig. 2. The altar is variouly understood as flanking 
(Stronach 1990: 174) or standing in the middle of the path leading to the building (Stronach 
1989: 479). Albenda 1976: 49 suggests the city is not Nineveh but Babylon. But see Dalley 
1994 (cf.n.89 below). 

Khorsabad. ARAB 2.83 (Sargon). Nineveh: ARAB 2.368 (703 BCE), 376 (702 BCE), 395 
(694 BCE), 414 (undated but late) = Luckenbill 1924: 97, 101, 111, 124 (Sennacherib), 
ARAB 2.698 a Borger 1956: 27 p.61f, ep.22.1-34 (Esarhaddon). - Amanus notwithstan- 
ding, Lackenbacher 1990: 94 thinks Sennacherib was also trying to reproduce a south 
Babylonian landscape which had much impressed him. 



Chapter 2. The Parks and Gardens of the Achaemenid Empire 

side of the palace, but does not use the Amanus designation, 22 and we should 
perhaps accept the possibility that there were also "large gardens" of a non- 
Amanus type. It should be noted in this context on the one hand that a sector of 
the city of Uruk was called Kirimahu (cf. CAD s.v. [2]) and on the other that an 
aitaw-garden is described in SAA iii 32 r.24 as a "likeness of Mt Lebanon". The 
former shows that kirimahu may have a slightly wider reference than just "Ama- 
nus-parks", the latter that things apparently somewhat similar to Amanus-parks 
can be described simply as gardens - though the religious context is admittedly a 
privileged one. 

Be that as it may, it is also essential to appreciate that Sennacherib's kirimahu 
at Nineveh is distinct from (a) the orchard plots created for the citizens above the 
city and fed by water from the Khosr Canal, (b) the more complex description of 
gardens above and below the city fed by the same canal now augmented with 
water supplies from Mt Musri (Jebel Bashiqah) and (c) the gardens, vineyards 
and orchards irrigated by the completed system of 19 canals. 23 Items (a), (b) and 
(c) are interconnected categories (and overlapping localities) but all are quite 
different from the Amanus-Jt/nma/iM. Fauth 1979 thus has no warrant for using 
botanical items from (b) in a description of the Amanus park. 
A few further comments are required about this material. 
1. An influential modern view connects the Amanus parks with the "park- 
land" images at Khorsabad and Nineveh (2[b], 3 [ii][a,b] above) and claims that 
they represent an important novelty in Assyrian garden history - a novelty which 
has west Syrian links (hence reference to Hittite-land and the allegedly west 
Syrian design of the column-fronted building or bitanu) and is characterised by 
replacement of utility by pleasure and display. 24 This probably requires some 
qualification. For one thing, Sargon, the putative innovator, lays no particular 
stress on the Amanus parks (most of his accounts of the foundation of Dur 
Sharrukin ignore it altogether 25 ), and the same is true of Sennacherib, Esarhad- 
don and Assurbanipal - indeed Sennacherib provides much more commentary on 
the gardens "above and below the city". More importantly, earlier Assyrian texts 
of Tiglath-Pileser I and (particularly) Assurnasirpal already describe tree gardens 
with a wealth of detail, giving clear hints that the large variety of species present 
are symbols of the King's power and promotion of fertility (cf. Stronach 1990: 
171) and evincing a powerful sense of the physical beauty of the sweet-smelling 
fruit trees, the flowing water and walkways. 26 So, although new layout or design 
or scale may be involved and there is a contrast between the stated location of the 
Nineveh (but not the Khorsabad) kirimahu beside a palace and that of 



ARAB 2.837 (= Streck 1916: 91 x 104f), Aynard 1957: 63 vi 58f. 
ARAB 2.333 = Luckenbill 1924: 79f. For detailed explanation of Sennacherib's develop- 
ment of the Nineveh water-supply cf. Jacobsen & Lloyd 1935: 31^3. 
Oppenheim 1965. Compare Wiseman 1982, Stronach 1990. 
ARAB 2/72f, 97-98, 102, 105, 108, 110, 112, 114, 119f. 

Tiglath-Pileser I: ARAB L249-254, ARI ii no. 1 col.7.17f. Assurnasirpal: ANET 558f; 
Wiseman 1952: 24ff, at 30.36f; ARI ii no.17, 678. See also Postgate 1973: 239, Wiseman 
1985: 59, Kinnier Wilson 1988: 80 

A. Pre-Achaemenid Material 


Assurnasirpal' s in "the meadow land by the Tigris" (or between the Tigris and the 
city), 27 there is probably continuity in other respects; indeed the later texts are, if 
anything, more matter-of-fact and utilitarian than the earlier ones. But the real 
truth is that utility conjoins with pleasure, as it did in Rusa's orchards at Ulhu - 
and as it might also in "ordinary" orchards too humble to be the subject of 
commentary in royal building texts - and that in Assurnasirpal' s gardens this was 
already not just a general fact about orchards but a matter of deliberate design and 
display. The proof of that is the reference to walkways: a purely utilitarian 
orchard, however intrinsically pleasant, only needs soil and irrigation channels. 28 

2. The unenclosed parkland scenes, the enclosed gardens, the demarcated 
lion-hunt arena and the open country in which some lesser prey are hunted are 
four distinct topographical settings. Their inter-relation (particularly the first 
two) with the categories attested in written texts is frankly uncertain, but there is 
nothing in the texts which enjoins us to blur the distinctions apparent in the 
iconography. (The combination of game park and botanical garden alleged to 
appear in a text of Sennacherib depends on misinterpretation of what is said about 
a so-called ambassu 29 ) Fauth 1969 is therefore not entitled to regard a conjuncti- 
on of these features as the origin of the Persian paradeisos; and since, as it turns 
out, there is no cause to regard the Persian paradeisos as a conjunction of such 
features he is doubly wrong. It is another matter, of course, whether there might 
be a link either between Assyrian and Persian hunting grounds or between 
Assyrian and Persian gardens/orchards. 

3. Two of the parkland images show altars (as well a column-fronted building 
generally assumed to be of secular character). The Weinlaube is evidently not an 
entirely straightforward garden space since the head of an executed Elamite king 
is hanging in one of the trees, and the view has been argued that it corresponds to 
a ritual area called the qirsu (Deller 1987). Two letters certainly or probably 
written to kings or crown-princes (ABL 65, 427) refer to sacrificial rites occuring 
in a "garden". Wiseman 1982: 138 identifies these gardens (and a further one in 
ABL 375) with the Amanus-style kirimahu (which are in turn, in his view, 

27 Since the Khorsabad palace was on, and jutted out beyond, the north edge of the city, a 
kirimahu beside the city could also be beside the palace; and Winter 1987: 362 - identifying 
the Amanus park with the parkland image (n.16) in the NW part of the palace - suggests that 
it was in the land outside the city immediately adjacent to the palace. But it is not clear that 
any of this would make it particularly decisively a palace garden. Jacobsen & Lloyd 1935: 
31 n.4 assert that the "garden was confined to a corner of the palace platform", but it is 
unclear how they can be sure of this. Stronach 1989: 479 does not think that the Nineveh 
kirimahu was in or directly next to the palace and allows that it might have been outside the 
city. The image in Room H (n.19) is certainly outside a city - as is the tree-covered 
landscape in n.9. 

Wiseman 1952: 28 assumed that the gardens, though covering a wide area in the plain 
outside Nimrud, were used for pleasure purposes, and actually compared the Khorsabad 
parkland image (cf. n.17). 

29 Luckenbill 1924: 80.20f, 113 viii 17f are cited in this sense by Oppenheim 1965: 333, who 
also thinks that the Amanus-ki rimahu (identified with the Room H picture) is a palace 
garden imitating an out-of-town ambassu. 



Chapter 2. The Parks and Gardens of the Achaemenid Empire 

B. Achaemenid Material 


• -2 

illustrated in the parkland scenes) and suggests that this contained within it an 
aJb'fu-garden (for which cf. n.118). On some current views, then, the distinction 
of secular and sacred garden seems to be slightly blurred. 30 

4. On the assumption that the Khorsabad parkland scene is meant to represent 
an actual place in the vicinity of the city, the hill presents a problem, since 
Khorsabad is set in a flat landscape. Stronach 1990 infers that the hill was 
specially created. Whether or not that image corresponds to the texts' Amanus- 
style kirimahu, that description certainly refers to something with differing 
ground levels and there is doubtless a fair chance that this involves artificial 


There are essentially two means of reasonably direct access to information and 
enlightenment about Achaemenid Gardens. 

(i) Archaeological or material remains 

(a) Five archaeological sites come into question. 

(1) Pasargadae. 31 Between Palace S and the Residence (Palace P) are two 
pavilions and an extensive set of stone-lined watercourses which, though partly 
decorative, presumably also supplied subordinate, earth-dug irrigation channels, 
enabling a water supply coming from the north-east and eventually from a 
perennial source on the east of the Tall-i Takht to create a garden. Surplus will 
have flowed on south-westwards, towards the area of Cyrus' tomb which lay in a 
paradeisos beside the river (Aristobulus 139 F 51 = Strabo 15.3.7, Arrian Anaba- 
sis 6.29.4). Stronach 1989 & 1990 specifically claims that the area of 150 x 120 
m. in front of Palace P is a four-part garden symbolising the four quarters of the 
world 32 and is a forerunner of later Persian garden design. What is certain is that 
the existence of a garden in that space is rather better established than in the other 
stippled areas of Stronach' s plan; and that if these other areas did contain 
cultivation it is quite possible that it was of a different sort from the that in the 
inner square. 33 It should be added that the assertion of Frankfort 1970: 216 that 



Cornelius 1988: fig.12 describes the Room H image as a temple garden. 
Stronach 1978: 107f; Yamauchi 1990: 317f, esp.328f; Stronach 1989 & 1990. 
Standing in the middle of the inner garden, the four sections lie to north, south, east and 
west. In DPh the four defining limits of the imperial world lie to north-east, south-west, 
south-east and north-west, but this is not perhaps a significant inconcinity. 
The suggestion (cf. Yamauchi 1990: 325) that two side-rooms in Palace P were used as 
gardens has little specific cogency. - Other evidence of Achaemenid water-management m 
Fars (e.g. dams north and south of Pasargadae: Kleiss 1988: 63f (with references to earlier 
publications); reservoir and irrigation works north-west, west and [perhaps] south-west ot 
Persepolis: Sumner 1986: 13f) lacks demonstrable specific relationship with gardens, 
though that such a relationship is sometimes involved is probable enough. (The items near 
Pasargadae are high water protection dams, but may have secondary relevance to irrigation, 
as was true in much later periods: Kleiss 1988:66.) 

Pasargadae as a whole was a series of pavilions in a huge park enclosed by a 
thirteen foot thick wall appears to be of uncertain validity. Stronach 1978: 10, 44 
does postulate a low stone and mudbrick wall around the palace area broken by 
the monumental entrance of Gate R. But the same author a few pages later (1978: 
50) describes Gate R as standing alone as an isolated propylaeum. (This wall 
should not be confused with the fortification wall associated with the Tall-i Takht 
shown on Schmidt 1940 pi. 15, Stronach 1978: fig.4.) 

(2) Persepolis. In Friedrich Krefter's reconstruction of the fully-developed 
Persepolis terrace a 60 x 31 m. space in front of Darius' tachara is shown as a 
garden. 34 Koch 1992: 264 would extend the garden area further eastwards in front 
of Xerxes' palace (cf. also de Frankovitch 1966: 207), and is inclined to think that 
at the outset, when the terrace contained only the Apadana, the Treasury and 
Darius' tachara, much of the remainder of the space was garden. (In other words, 
Krefter's small green patch is what is eventually left of a once very extensive 

(3) Persepolis Region. On the direct line between Persepolis and Naqs-i 
Rustam at the point at which the R.Pulvar enters the Marv Dasht stands a palace 
•similar to Pasargadae S. 35 150 m. to the SE in the same geometric grid are the 
remains of a tomb like that of Cyrus at Pasargadae (the so-called Takht-i Ru- 
stam). In view of the evidence of gardens at Pasargadae, Triimpelmann published 
a reconstruction with a single walled garden of 210 x 170 m. ( = 3.5 ha) 
embracing both palace and tomb. 36 It is not unlikely that other, perhaps more 

34 cf. Triimpelmann 1988: 60f, 86f, 94f. 

35 Stronach 1989: 484; 1990: 176; Tilia 1978, figs. 1,3; Triimpelmann 1988: fig.13 . 

36 The orientation of the four quarters here would also (cf. n.32) be north, south, east and west. 
-The site is one of several in the Persepolis environs which Sumner 1986: 26f speculatively 
identified as royal or quasi-royal residences situated in gardens: these include one of the 
Firuzi sites due west of Persepolis (Firuzi 6 = Tilia 1978: map IE), a place with a 
monumental gateway comparable with Pasargadae R, and other stone building sites at 
Band-i Amir (Sumner site Y) and other locations (sites C, E, M, V). Some inconsistencies 
creep in here. Herzfeld (cf. Tilia 1978: 85 n.l) postulated a paradeisos near Band-i Amir, 
i.e. Sumner site Y (not Rpace Sumner 1986: 10), but Sumnerl986: 10 rejects this because 
"the large number of reported buildings suggests something more substantial than a few 
isolated garden houses" - a small town in fact. Sumner seems to have changed his mind 
between p. 10 and p.23 on how to read an admittedly ambiguous archaeological record. 
There is a similar shift elsewhere since Firuzi 6 is part of a conglomeration of sites which 
Sumner initially (23) ascribes to the town/city of MatezziS (though at 28 he seems to 
distinguish them), site M is characterized as a town and site C may deserve the same 
accolade (1986: 10). It remains unclear whether Sumner is deliberately adjusting his overall 
interpretation in the course of the article or (i) distinguishing paradeisos from (other) 
gardens and (ii) assuming that town or city planning was not such as to preclude the garden- 
adorned villa. For present purposes the truth is that, since actual remains in all these sites 
are generally extremely sketchy, though consistent with (modest) palaces or villas, none of 
them can provide any novel objective or near objective evidence about gardens. (The same 
would go, of course, for assigning gardens to any other comparable building e.g. the early 
uncompleted palace near Bushehir at Borazjan or the remains at nearby Sang-i Siah 
[Matheson 1972: 302].) 



; o 



! «0 


Chapter 2. The Parks and Gardens of the Achaemenid Empire 

B. Achaemenid Material 


I I 

7 ■ 

modest, establishments of similar type were to be found a various places in the 
Persepolis plain (cf. Kawami 1992: 90). 

(4) Susa. In the Chaour palace across the river at Susa two portico' d buildings 
certainly looked out at right angles across a flat space, and there may have been 
buildings all round what would then be an enclosed area of about 70 x 60 m. 
(Boucharlat et al. 1979; Stronach 1980: 484f). Stronach again envisages a four- 
fold garden, while the French excavators assume a large plantation of trees 
encompassing the whole palace. 

(5) Susa. Perrot 1981: 83 suggests that part of the palace platform was 
occupied by a garden. The evidence is entirely negative, viz. the absence of any 
sign of buildings in the extreme north western sector, and if the suggestion were 
correct this would not be an enclosed garden in the sense of items (1), (3) and (4) 
and would occupy a larger and less regular space than item (2). 

It must be stressed that all these items apart from the central part at Pasarga- 
dae are entirely hypothetical; that they also offer at least three different scenarios: 
(i) buildings in an unenclosed mixture of formal garden and parkland, (ii) buil- 
dings within an enclosed garden of some 3.5 ha, (iii) small gardens enclosed by 
buildings; and that there is no direct evidence about the name or names which 
might have been given to any of these arrangements. 37 

" (b) One might have hoped for visual evidence, but Achaemenid iconography 
- unlike that of the Assyrians (see above) or Sassanids (as at Taq-i Bostan) 38 - is 
parsimonious with truly relevant material. There are no large-scale bunting 
scenes, and the conviction of Anderson 1961: 67 (and others) that the two palm 
trees on a famous seal of Darius "represent" a hunting paradeisos is surely wildly 
optimistic. Kaptan-Bayburtoglu 1990 reports a sealing from Dascyleium sho- 
wing man, horse, tree and birds which is claimed to represent the local paradei- 
sqs* but until it is published it is hard not to be sceptical; and other Achaemenid 
and sub-Achaemenid hunting images normally deploy little or no landscape 
setting. 59 The Cavuskoyii funerary stele (Akurgal 1961: fig.119) actually has an 
apparently dead tree stump which on the most generous interpretation could only 
be called a deeply uninfonnative allusion to a Persian hunting park. 40 Purely 

37 SriH more hypothetical is the population of gardens at Altiniepe (Summers 1993). 

33 Dalky 1993: 140 suggests that the Sassanid image was inspired by Sennacherib's pictures 
of marshlands campaigns, 

39 Aa exotic piece of Greek Pemrie, the Xenofhantus lecytfaus (ARV 2 1407 [1]; Minns 1913: 
343 %-249X includes date-palms and siphiom-plants (with mpods ©a top!) in «* fanusy 
Persian feoal scene. Tbe hunt at Vergina (Andronitos 1934: Egs^Si) is asocfoer marten but 
the wooded setting there is a sacred grove, to judge hy the votive offerings co a tree and the 
{?} v<?ti^ P iUar with statue, and the relationship with paaraieb&i is, to say the least, 
WtttroversiaL See Briant 1991. 

4Q- Oa a funerary monument a dead tree might theoretically be symtwfc jost as the dead tree 
stump im the Atc\ar&kr Mosaic arguabty hints at DaiiW defeat (cf- the brofcea palm as 
symfcot of Troy's fall in Rooertso*Tl975; 234X But the a^rarance of tree stumps or trees 
wi& branches cut short on Greek reliefs and even poiaaags as aa exrressioo of landscape 
setting is (until the late heUenistic period) commonplace and caa occuar ia images *^^J 
has no conotixa&te specific symbolic significance ^Carrort-SptEecfce 19S5: 41-56, 15 1 • 

botanical gardens are equally badly served. The most one can do is observe the 
presence of certain pertinent motifs in the Achaemenid iconographical and deco- 
rative repertoire, e.g. the attachments on the end of Persian spears which Greeks 
at least interpreted as fruit (apples; pomegranates), the fruit carried by courtiers in 
the Apadana frieze, the lotus-flower held by the enthroned King in the central 
image of the same cycle and elsewhere, the rosette which appears all over the 
carved surfaces of Persepolis and (in different form) in the design of the King's 
throne-covering and the King's robe, the leaf and palmette decorations on some 
Persepolitan column-bases, the single conifers used as scene-dividers in the 
"Tribute Bearers" frieze and as decoration above and to the right and left of the 
enthroned King, the palmette-tipped stalks which decorate formal scenes in 
various parts of the terrace and appear (abbreviatedly) within the design of the 
King's robe, the lotus-head design which appears in the same place and in 
Achaemenid jewellery, the palmette design above the "Guard" figures at Susa, 
the palm trees which feature in certain "royal" seal-designs. 41 

This is a formidable list, but there are two important qualifications, (i) Much 
of the material is not a visually very prominent part of the iconography. This is 
arguably not true of the conifers and it is perhaps slightly more reasonable to see 
them as formalised evidence of the natural environment of Persepolis than (for 
example) it is (in a Greek artistic setting) to regard the occasional whispy trees 
beloved of the Meidias Painter as images of gardens. 42 (ii) Virtually all the items 
listed above have (often rather close) parallels in the iconographic repertoire of 

175). The natural assumption that foliage was painted on reliefs is made difficult by the fact 
that "dead" trees can appear on vase and fresco-painting as well (four of the six trees in the 
Vergina Hunt [n.39] are bare), though it might still be correct in some cases. Painters were, 
of course, quite capable of painting trees in leaf (cf. Vergina again or the fruit- tree 
illustrated in Carroll-Spillecke 1989: fig.20), though many trees on vase-paintings which do 
have foliage have it in fairly modest form, with the essential shape of the naked tree 
remaining a very prominent aspect of the image (cf. illustrations in Burn 1987, Malagardis 
1988). In any event the Cavuskoyu image may exemplify convention (in an artistic culture 
startlingly lacking a landscape tradition) rather than symbolism. By the same token it is not 
very helpful. 

41 Spears. Koch 1992: fig.81 Fruit, flowers. The King and other figures hold fruit or flowers in 
the Apadana cycle and elsewhere; and abbreviated version of the flower head appears in the 
Boston earrings. Conifers. Frankfort 1970: fig.439. Palmette-tipped stalks. Schmidt 1953: 
pl.16-17, 19, 22 (Apadana), 126-7, 155 (Darius Palace), 159-61, 165 (Xerxes Palace), 
204-5 (Palace H). Such stalks also appear (wholly or partially) in part of the King's 
garment (Koch 1992: fig.152). For Assyrian parallel cf. Calmeyer 1988: pl.18. Linked 
palmette design. Calmeyer 1988: 30 (fig.3) = MDP 30 [1947] 49 (Susa Guards). For 
Assyrian parallel cf. the Nineveh "carpet" (Tilia 1978: 50 fig.5A/B). Palmettes also appear 
along with leaves in the design of column bases. Palm trees. See n.l 19. Rosettes, flowers. 
Rosettes appear as fillers all over Persepolis, on the Throne Cover, on one type of royal 
crown and, with other floral designs, in the King's Garment (above). For Assyrian parallels 
cf. Oppenheim 1949. - Such evidence as we have about classical Persian carpets (Lorenz 
1937; Zick-Nissen 1966) casts little additional light on the topic. 

42 Osborne 1992: 374; contra Burn 1987: 18f, 29f, 83f.- It is of course sometimes possible tor 
a single tree to stand for a wood (e.g. Louvre F 184 - Malagardis 1988: 1080- 








Chapter 2. The Parks and Gardens of the Achaemenid Empire 

neo-Assyrian and Babylonian royal self-expression. Its presence therefore provi- 
des uncertain evidence about specifically Persian horticultural practices. One 
may add that the suggestion occasionally made that there is an analogy between 
the regular but congested placing of columns in the Apadana or the Hall of 100 
Columns and that of trees in a paradeisos or that whole sections of the Persepolis 
terrace were meant to resemble stands of trees interspersed with roses and reeds 
(cf. Francis 1980: 66 - "a hypostyle forest or sacred grove resting on a lily pond") 
is rather far-fetched, and hardly stands up to inspection of a reconstruction (such 
as Krefter's) of what the ensemble looked like when complete and intact. 

(ii) Written sources 

There are two (at least formally) distinct categories of material here. 

The first is that of texts referring to gardens or the like in linguistically purely 
non-Iranian terms - largely Greek, but also Akkadian and Hebrew. 

Interpreted strictly - e.g. not initially including any text which mentions 
(Persian) fruit and therefore raises the question of the orchard / garden from 
which it came; and not necessarily counting a garden as relevant just because we 
have evidence of something garden-like geographically lying within the empire 43 

- this is quite a small category. It embraces kepoi and diverse fruit-trees in 
Mesembria in the Persian Gulf (Arrian Indica 39), the royal palm in Garden of 
Bagoas at Babylon (Theophrastus HP 2.6.7, Pliny NH 13.41), the garden and the 
court of the garden of the king's bitan at Susa in Esther, 44 deversoria at Ecbatana 
with great recessus and a hand-sown wood surrounded by a wall (Curtius 7.2.22) 

- and also (given the hunting associations of the Persian paradeisos: see below) 
the royal thera of the Lydians and Persians at Zela (Strabo 13.1.17) and Bazaira, 
a Sogdian region containing well-watered nemora or saltus with walls and 
hunting-towers in one of which Alexander and his army killed a lion and 4,000 
animals and then held a banquet (Curtius 8.1.1 If; Diodorus 17 proL26) 45 It may 
also include the locations to which Darius' satrap Gadatas transplanted fruit trees 
from east of the Euphrates and/or the profane land which he forced the sacred 

■? : ' 

B. Achaemenid Material 



e.g. Hierokepis in Cyprus (Strab.14.6.3; Plin.TW 5.130) or the garden from which Abda- 
lonymus was plucked by Alexander to be king of Tyre, Sidon or Paphos (Diod.17.47.6. 
Curt.4.3.4; Plut.Afor.340D). The association of the sacred groves of Daphne/Antioch (cf. 
n.150) with paradeisoi (OCD 2 347) can hadly be assumed ab initio, any more than one 
would assume such a thing of the alsos or temenos of Zeus Stratios at Labraunda (Hdt.5. 1 1 8) 
or Apollo at Claros (Paus.7.5.5). - It is tempting to think that the appearance of a place in 
eastern Thrace called Ganos (which corresponds to the Semitic root for "garden': 
Xen.Anafc.7.5.8, Aeschin. 3.82, Harpoc.s.v.) has some connection with the fact of Achae- 
menid rule in the region and the use of aramaic as an administrative language. But there is 
no proving it. 

1.5, 7.7-8. The court (kaiser or aule) is apparently a luxurious / permanent building within 
a garden which is itself attached to the bitan. Inevitably one thinks of the Pasargadae 
pavilions, though the scale may be different. 
45 Lemaire/Lozmacheur 1990: 153 connect the hunting place of WSWNS with a paradeisos. 


phytourgoi of Apollo to cultivate. 46 As will become clear these few items disclo- 
se nothing out of line with evidence provided by other categories of material. 

The second category of written sources is that of texts describing gardens in 
Iranian terms at least to the extent of using an Iranian word to designate them. In 
short paradeisoi. This requires more discussion. 

The word is definitely Iranian, corresponding to *paridaida (OP) or paridae- 
za (Avestan: attested in Videvdad 3.18). The -s- in the root of the Greek word 
suggests that it was borrowed directly from what is regarded as a Median form 
(*paridaiza). The etymological meaning is enclosure. Dio 3.135f compares a 
hunting paradeisos with a heirkte and glossographers say that ganos - i.e. Semitic 
gan = garden, a word whose root meaning is also enclosure - is used in Cyprus to 
mean paradeisos', but it is not clear that either passage reflects philological 
knowledge and the only explicit address of the etymology of paradeisos is in 
Herodian (de orthographia 3.2.449.17, 491.8). He derives the word from deuein, 
suggesting that it means "watered place". This is additional evidence of the 
perceived importance of water in horticulture but says nothing for etymological 
science. (Things are, incidentally, even worse with Herodian's etymology of 
kepos which he connects with kapnos and inteprets as peripneomenos topos. This 
does not even cast any useful light on horticulture.) 

To establish an etymological meaning is not, of course, to establish very 
much. That paradeisoi were enclosed is occasionally made explicit 47 but it is not 
a distinctive feature, as is shown by the etymology of gan, by the texts which 
speak of kepoi being walled, enclosed or gated (not to speak of similar references 
to groves and other types of location) 48 and by current near-eastern practice. We 
need rather to comb the sources (initially all sources using the word non-eschato- 
logically) to cast light upon such things as the size, contents, location and 
frequency, purpose, and perception / valuation of paradeisoi. 

It would be nice to start with Persian sources. But strictly speaking there are 
none. 49 The nearest thing (and, if the relevant linguistic assumption is correct, it 
is a very near thing) is some 40 Achaemenid period Elamite texts from Persepolis 

46 Meiggs & Lewis 1968: 12; Asheri 1983: 38. 

47 e.g. the perieirgmenoi paradeisoi of Dascylium in Xen.iM/.4.U5f, the peribolos of the 
paradeisos around Cyrus' tomb (Aristobulus 139 F 51), the walled garden of Susannah and 
the Elders (Dan. 13.4,7), the prescription for a thrinkos in Geoponica 10.1, the haimasia or 
portico'd wall in the paradeisos descriptions of Longus 4.2 and Achilles Tatius 1.15, the 
walled elaionophoinikoparadeisos in P.Vind.Boswinkel 8 + 9 » SB 11711 (BASP 1977, 
95), and the walled paradeisos in P.Osl.108. 

48 Gardens: Theopomp. 115F89, 135 (Athen.532F), Dem.47.53, Hermipp.47K ■ 48KA, 
Diog.Laert.7.25, Longus 2.3, Plat.Cn//. HOD, 112B; Polyb. 18.20.1; Homer Od JM2f, 
24.205f; Theophr.7.4.5; Apollod. ap Athen.682 D; Agora XII 8 Bl; Galen ii 98; ps.- g .12.9.1f; BGU 1120. Khoria: Thuc.1.106, 7.82; Homer //. 18.561. Groves: 
Pi.O.13.109 (+ schol.), Paus.2.27.1 (horoi\ 7.27.3. 8.31.5, 37.10, AelJSM 1 1.2. Luc.Dwn.6, 
PlutTAem.8 (stelai). In Long.2.3, however, the removal of a haimasia would make a garden 
look like a grove. 

49 It seems more likely than not that paradayadam in A 2 Sd is not the Old Persian version of 
Paradeisos, paridaida and that the text does not say that Artaxerxes constructed a palace as 
a paradeisos. See Lecoq 1990, who suggests reading the word as pariyadam and 





: ***» 

■ ; o 

: ; o" 
■ : .c 




Chapter 2. The Parks and Gardens of the Achaemenid Empire 

which speak of something called a partetas. 5 ® Experts have disagreed about 
whether parietal is the Elamite for paradeisos} 1 I am not philologically compe- 
tent to judge, though I note that in PF 158 we have a partetas called Misdukba 
named next to a kirima or kiri named Dahutrasa, and kiri[ma] evokes the Akkadi- 
an words for park or garden (Hinz & Koch 1987: s.v. translate it "Palmengar- 
teiT). The view in Hinz & Koch 1987: s.v. is that partetas corresponds to 
*paridaida - which does seem reasonable - but should be translated "Domane" 
or "Herrenguf , not paradeisor, and in her studies of Persepolis administration 
Koch regards the partetas as a royal "Vorratslager" or "Sammelstelle" (1980: 
119 n.73; 1990: 21). These reactions certainly reflect what emerges about parte- 
tas in the texts, but perhaps not altogether properly. The facts are as follows. 

1. Partetas figure as storage places for natural produce in (tax receipt) texts 
(category CI : cf. n.50). The produce (dates; fruit, including what may be apricots, 
apples and pomegranates; various types of grain) will in due course be apportio- 
ned for consumption, though where and by whom is not normally stated. The 
partetas is much the commonest specified category of storage-place in texts of 
this sort. The only others are fortresses (159-160), an estate (180) and a "provisi- 
on shed" (C-l: 331; cf. n.60), and in the vast majority of cases we just find a 
toponym. It is hard to know what, if anything, to infer from this - though it is 
pretty likely that some of the plain toponyms conceal partetas (cf. below). 

2. There are connections with trees: PFa33 inventories 6,166 tree seedlings at 
five places, three times adding "at the partetaTi and PF 1815 (cf. T- 1368:6) 
records rations of four zappan-wood handlers in the partetas called Parsaras at 
Persepolis. 52 

3. A food-product called kar is made in several of them. 53 

4. There are ration-receiving work forces besides the wood handlers, viz. 
groups of boys, girls and women and a group variously interpreted as "copperers 

50 Many appear in category CI texts (identified as tax receipts by Koch 1980): PF 144 
(Madana), 145 (Barasba), 146-148 (Nupistas), 149 (Aptudaral), 150-151 (Saurakkas), 152 
(Mutrizas), 153 (Kutkus), 154 (Saurakkas, 155 (Hapruma), 156 (Kutkus), 157 (Tamukkan 
& Kabas), 158 (Misdukba); Cl-85 (Nupistas), Cl-222 (Murkaziya), Cl-619 (Kandukka), 
CI-813 (Upirizza), Cl-817 (Nupistas), Cl-989 (Nupistas), Cl-1 156 (Nupistas), C1-1H8 
(Abbadaras), Cl-1439 (Barasba), Cl-1455 (Akkuban), Cl-1505 (Nupistas), Cl-1981 
(Kutkus), Cl-1991 (Mamakas), Cl-2141 (Nupistas), Cl-2445 (Nupistas). Other texts are: 
W-2280 (Persepolis), V-2259 (Pasargadae), 1815 and T-1368 (Parsaras), FT 1963-9 (? 
Hardarizza), PFa 33 (Appistapdan, Tikranus, Pirdubatti), PT 49 and 59 (Vispasiyatis, L- 
1612, PT 48 (anonymous). - In V-260 a commodity is taken from Datapparna at Kukanna- 
kan to four places. Three are otherwise known as partetas-siies (Murkaziya, Matannan [on 
the normal assumption that Matannan = Madana in PF 144] and Parsaras), but it is doubtful 
that this justifies locating a partetas at the fourth, viz. Tirazzis = Shiraz. 

51 The identification was proposed by Benveniste 1954: 308; 1958: 57f. Cameron 1963: 177 
rejected iL Hallock 1969: 15 was non-committal. Lecoq 1990: 211 n.23 also pronounces 

52 "Wood-keepers'* are attested in PF 1946: 81 (as re-interpreted by Hallock 1978: 116), 
though not in connection with a partetas. See also n.59. 

53 PF 142-157 refer to various individuals as "the fair-maker in the partetas". 

\ ! i [ ■ 

B. Achaemenid Material 


or "Cypriots". 54 Both boys and copperers/Cypriots are described as "guarding" or 


5. The boys in PT 48 are attached to the royal house, but that is the only 
manifest sign of high connections unless the name Ammasis connected with a 
partetas in two texts (PT 48; Cameron 1963: no.9) is (a) a female proper name 
and (b) the name of a princess. (For another possibility see below, item 7.) There 
is no significance in the fact that some of the grain registered at partetas is of the 
type called "royal tarmiT. 

6. One one occasion sheep are provided for a celebration of the /an-ceremony 
(a sacrifice to Ahuramazda according to Koch 1977) in the (or a) partetas at 
Pasargadae (V-2259: 8). 

7. Normally partetas are recorded as being at some particular named locality. 
Some 22 such places are involved. (Their location is discussed in an appendix.) 
They include the major sites of Persepolis and Pasargadae, but only four of the 
otherplaces are attested at all often in the archive, and, although C 1-619 appears 
to refer to a "partetas [of the] treasury" at Kandukka, there is on the whole no 
significant overlap with other categories of place (such as treasury or fortress). 
This does not encourage one to think that most partetas are of great size/status; 
and the fact that produce can be stored at four different partetas (Hapruma, 
Kutkus, Saurakkas, Mutrizas) for use at a single estate (irmatam) belonging to 
Sutezza (PF 150-155) is consistent with modesty of size. 55 It should be added 
that aside from this clutch of partetas somewhere south or south-east of Persepo- 
lis there is little explicit coincidence between partetas and the entities conventio- 
nally translated as "estates". 56 Of course, if it is true that many of the partetas 
were in the vicinity of Persepolis (cf. appendix) it is not unlikely that they were 
also often in the vicinity of the "estates" of high-ranking persons which might be 
expected to gravitate in the same direction. But it is hard to draw any confident 
conclusions from this. 57 Occasionally partetas have individual names of their 

54 Cameron 1963: no.9; Ll-1612; PT 48, 49, 59. The interpretation of kupirriyaip as "Cyprio- 
ts" (Ll-1612; PT49; also PT 54-55) has been advanced by David Lewis and Koch 1993. 

55 It is unclear what inference should be drawn from the possibility of there being both a 
partetas and a storehouse with different officials in charge at Pirdubatti (PFa 33) and a 
partetas and a provision-shed at NupistaS (cf. n.60). Nor can it be certain that the location of 
ipartetas at "Tamukkan and Kabas" (PF 157) indicates that it was peculiarly large. (For 
other dual locations cf. e.g. Pasargadae and Rakakus [Ll-1 132, Ll-1427, M-853, M-1083, 
M-1086, M-1165], Sala and UskannaS [Ll-1490, Ll-2526], Sala and Kuntarturrizan [PF 
943, 944].) 

56 Naktunna (?) has an estate at Akkuban (PF 2075), Irsama one at Matannan = Madana (T- 
958), and MasdayaSna one in the vicinity of Persepolis (W-2271). 

57 The partetas mentioned in CI texts (which constitute the majority of the sample as a whole) 
appear to split between area III and the vicinity of Persepolis (cf. appendix). Can we be sure 
that it is anything other than a statistical accident or the product of local variations in scribal 
practice that none of the quite numerous CI texts (ten in PF) referring to places located by 
Koch 1990 in areas V or VI refers specifically to a partetasl - Incidentally, although one is 
surely entitled to expect that many important estates were located close to Persepolis most 
of the estate sites which Koch 1990 assigns to a specific area (see appendix) are in W, IV or 
V and not I. Of course, the borders of III, IV and V are not distant from the capital. 

J a. 






Chapter 2. The Parks and Gardens of the Achaemenid Empire 

own. In one possible case the name is Vispasiyatis, i.e. Full Prosperity, 58 and in 
another the alternative interpretation of Ammasis produces a partetas of the 
Beautiful Mother (Hinz & Koch 1987: s.v. partetas). Less immediately evocative 
is ParsaraS (PF 1815; T-1368), but interestingly the name recurs elsewhere as a 
geographical name without further qualification; and the same may be true of 
MiSdukba. 59 So there may be other partetas concealed among the geographical 
names of the Persepolis archive, 60 and it is evident that a partetas can be not 
merely an adjunct to a place but the place itself. It does not follow that such 
partetas are particularly large. It is perhaps more a question of how distinctively 
they stick out of their local landscape, how much in any particular case a 
settlement or a bureaucratically significant storage place is overshadowed, per- 
haps literally, by the partetas. 

From a functional-analytic point of view the interpretations partetas in Hinz 
& Koch 1987 and Koch 1990 are understandable; but I suspect both involve an 
unspoken feeling that the run of evidence does not quite conjure up what people 
expect of Persian paradeisoi - that is, high-status pleasure gardens. (Hallock 
1969: 15 makes this very complaint.) If so, then this is to put the problem wholly 
the wrong way around. If partetas = paradeisos then whatever these texts reveal 
are features of a Persian paradeisos; and if the conclusion is that a Persian 
paradeisos can be a storage place, a work centre and even relatively humble, then 
so be it. Precisely because *paridaida is a word of non-specific etymology we 
should make no initial assumptions about the range of phenomena it might 

This should be kept in mind as we turn to look at the evidence from Greek, 
Hebrew and Akkadian sources. 61 This material embraces (1) about 110 items in 
literary and epigraphic sources (i.e. specific paradeisoi, sometimes attested in 
more than one source, or instances of the word paradeisos), of which under a 
third may be taken as having direct relation to Achaemenid conditions and (2) 
very numerous references to paradeisoi or - particularly - payment of paradeisos 

B. Achaemenid Material 



58 PT 49, 59; with Benveniste 1958: 57f. Skjaervo 1994 connects the name with Wispad in the 
Abnun inscription. 

ParsaraS: PF 285, V-260, T-1280, Koch 1990: 24. (T-1280 is a record of payment to 

zap/wn-wood workers which is a near duplicate of PF 1 815, T-1368, but with "at Parsara 

instead of "at the partetas (called) ParsaraS". Another near-duplicate, T-948, replaces a 

reference to ParsaraX with simply "at Persepolis".) MiSdukba: PF 158; this depends on its 

identity with MisdubaiS (PF971, 1947, 2042: so Koch 1990: 409). m 

60 Compare PF 146-148 (commodities stored "at NupiStaS at the partetaD with C1-8W 
(exactly parallel but with only "at NupiStaS"). Of course, we do not have to supply "at t e 
partetaV. Yet another near parallel, Cl-331 has "at NupiStaS in the provision-she 
[GIS.Hntaf]". Incidentally, one view is that NupiStaS was at NaqS-i Rustam, the burial plac 
of the Achaemenid Kings. 

61 For completeness* sake note marsaparrape (OP *varsabara y Aram, wrsbr) » "nurseryman t 
or "forester" (Hallock 1985: 605), the suggestion that Nabukka who "carried WP 1 ™? 
(?plants) in PF 1499 was a gardener and the appearance of trees and seeds as commoditi 
in an unpublished aramaic text from Persepolis (Bowman 192). 

taxes in Egyptian documentary papyri of Ptolemaic and Roman date. 62 We shall 
start by investigating what such sources have to say about the size, contents and 
location of paradeisoi, and then move to more general observations, but we may 
notice immediately that Diodorus' reference to paradeison phyteias poikilas 
between Susa and Persepolis may presuppose type-differentiation and that Arrian's 
description of central Persis as having paradeisoi pantoioi certainly does. 63 We 
need not confine this to a distinction between mim&X-paradeisoi and botanical 


Size. Indications of size come in various forms. A number of sources offer 
precise quantifications. The Hanging Garden of Babylon was 4 plethra square, 
i.e. 120x 120 m. or 1.44 hectares (Diodorus 2. 10. If; Strabo 16.1.5). The paradei- 
sos in Philostratus Apollonius 2.27 is one stade long and presumably not imagi- 
ned as being wider than that; this is certainly true of Longus' paradeisos (4.2) 
which is 1 stade x 4 plethra, i.e. 176 m. x 120 m. or approximately 1 hectare. (It is 
worth noting that the elaborate description by itself would almost certainly 
induce one to think it bigger than this.) The larger of the Levantine paradeisoi in 
which balsamon grew was about 1 .8 hectares, though it was part of or adjacent to 
a palm grove in the vicinity of Jericho which stretched for 18 km. 64 Of quite 
different order of magnitude is Semiramis' paradeisos at Behistun with a circum- 
ference of 12 stades, and an area of about 33.5 ha (if circular) and about 27.5 ha 
(if square). 65 These cases appear to exhaust what literary sources have to offer. 
Documentary sources are another matter. The paradeisoi at Tbalmura and Peria- 
sostra in the plain of Sardis, for example, were of 15 and 3 artaba size, i.e. 4.185 
and 0.837 ha on one evaluation of the artaba and one assumption about seeding 
rates. The absolute figure might be smaller, though the relative difference of scale 
remains in any case. 66 The bulk of relevant material comes, however, not from 
Anatolia but from Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, where paradeisos had a long 
history as the term for an orchard and the designation of land subject to a 
particular tax regime. Thorough examination of this material would be a labo- 
rious undertaking, but a relatively unsystematic survey provides some suggestive 

Without an utterly systematic search no global figure is possible; but P.Mich.223-225 alone 

contain hundreds of pieces of taxed parade isos Aand, and I have examined a further 175 or 

so texts referring to specific paradeisoi to payment of paradeisos-texes. (Very occasionally 

paradeisos is replaced by the form paradeison, e.g. P.Hamb.99. Hesych.s.v. ernokomon 

produces another aberrant form, paradeisarion.) 

Diod.19.21.3; Arr.IndAQ. Diodorus is consistent with small unit-size. 

Theophr.f/P 9.6.1,4 (and cf. Strab. 16.2.41, Joseph.^/ 4.467). 

Behistun: Ctes.688Fl = Diod.2.13.1. The surviving evidence of water-management - 

presumed to be paradeisos-related - is of Sasanid date, and has been connected with the 

hunting images at Taq-i Bustan (cf. Matheson 1972: 130, pl.28). But there is no suggestion 

of hunting in Ctesias. 

Sardis VII.1; Atkinson 1972. The calculation is based on 1 artaba = 55.80 litres (Hdt. 1.192) 

and a sowing rate of 200 litres per hectare. The Egyptian artaba was smaller than this, 

ranging according to various calculations from 21.88 to 39.39 litres (cf. Luddekens I960: 

261; Sardis VII p.79). In Persian contexts Porten 1968 equates an ardab with 30 qa, which 

(according to Bivar 1985: 632) would be 27.9 litres. 









: ' *r 

i r Ifrft* 

i !■ m 

!: O 


- .c 

! 13 


Chapter 2. The Parks and Gardens of the Achaemenid Empire 

(i) Various documents reveal the proportion of village land categorised as 
paradeisos. At Cerceosiris 4700 arourai of land included just 21,25 (about 
0.45%) listed as paradeisos, of which 20 were sacred property and both this and 
the remaining 1.25 were eremoi (though the small parcel was used for vegeta- 
bles). 67 Individual paradeisos-plots must have been small, as was also the case at 
Psen, where less than 3.5 arourai of paradeisos-lznd was divided between 13 
koitai, and the places in P.Tebt.503 (a damaged list including the following 
paradeisos sizes per village: 5.75, 1.75, 1.125, 0.6, 0.5). 68 Other villages were 
richer in this respect - the village covered in P.Oxy . 1437 had a total of nearly 78 
arourai of paradeisos and a village near Medinet Nehas (Magdola) had almost 32 
arourai (20% of its territory) given over to paradeisoi and vineyards (P.Tebt.80) 
- but it does not follow that unit size was larger. 

(ii) Inspection of nearly 250 parcels of paradeisosAznd in the first Karanis 
tax roll (P.Mich.223 + fragments in Shelton 1977) reveals that the median size is 
0.75 arourai, that only 25% of parcels exceed 1.25 arourai and only 15% exceed 
2 arourai. The commonest size (nearly 40 cases) is 0.5 arourai. Moreover, since 
separate parcels can sometimes be aggregated for tax purposes (cf. 
P.Mich.223.2444 + frag.B.2f and P.Mich.224.2608, 3018 with P.Mich.225.1952), 
some of the larger items in P.Mich.223 might actually be aggregations. This 
might, no doubt, be an unrepresentative sample. Examination of BGU 1896 and 
about 85 further texts culled haphazardly from standard collections offer a range 
of figures which lie rather higher than those in P.Mich.223, but the median value 
is still only 1 aroura and under 30% exceed 2 arouraL When one considers that 
an aroura is about 0.25 ha it is reasonably clear that the Egyptian paradeisos is on 
the whole a fairly modest object. 

Few other sources permit us to infer anything about size. The paradeisos of 
Pammenes gave its name to a whole region (amphodos) of Oxyrhyncus. 69 Car- 
roll-Spillecke 1989: 58 cites evidence from the Zeno archive to suggest that 
Apollonius had at least one large paradeisos in the Fayum. But the texts are not 
unequivocal. In PCZ 59157 at least 300 conifers are to be planted "through the 
whole paradeisos and around the vineyards and olive groves", and in PCZ 59184 
Zeno is to take 3000 olive shoots from "our paradeisos and from the gardens 
(kepoi) in Memphis". In neither case can one be sure about the implied extent 

67 P.Tebt.60.38f, 222, 61a.l49f, Crawford 1971: 12 n.2, 44. (1 aroura is slightly more than 
0.25 ha.) - Eremos is a peculiar concept, since in SB 1 1893 we read of new date-palms in a 
paradeisos eremos. Other occurences include P.Tebt.700.95, 1001.31,34, 1117.13, 1120.42; 
SB 6002; P.RyI.215.33; P.HeIs.15; BGU 2377. 

Low proportion of parade isosAand is matched for a whole toparchy in P.Oxy.3205 = SB 
10891 (less than 1%), where moreover the majority was paradeisos khersos and only about 
22.5 arourai (0.14%) was orchard. The Oxyrhyncus nome boasted c. 3073 arourai of 
P^adeisos and vineyard planted (additionally) with corn and arakos (SB 12200 = ZPt 

Frequently attested, e.g. P.Oxy.249, 648, 693, 1452, 3136, 3141, 3154, 3183, 3283; BGU 
2459; SB 7990.13; PSI 708, 732; P.Flor.4; P.Yale 69, 71; P.Tumer 38, 42; P.Upps.Frid.6; 
P.Fouad.69; CPG 2/3 1.71,81. 



B. Achaemenid Material 


specifically of the paradeisos.™ The west bank paradeisos at Babylon in which 
Alexander lay ill in June 323 was not large enough for a full scale meeting of 
army officers - at any rate Alexander returned to Babylon before holding such a 
meeting - and a paradeisos at Didyma which contained an altar of Tykhe and had 
become enclosed by buildings sounds like a fairly modest emplacement. 71 Other 
sources assert large size, but unquantifiably, as when Josephus (AJ 12.229f) 
speaks of pammekeis paradeisoi at Araq el Emir, Appian {Mithridatica 380) of 
makroi paradeisoi at Tigranocerta, Xenophon (Anabasis 1.2.7) of the big animal- 
paradeisos at Celaenae (but see below, p. 102, on the size of hunting paradeisoi), 
and P.Reinach 93.15 of a "large paradeisos with appurtenances". The informati- 
on that Semiramis' gigantic paradeisos at Chauon in Media could contain the 
whole of her army (Ctesias 688F1 = Diodorus 2. 13.3), that the "large" paradeisos 
at Sittace was large enough to be falsely alleged to conceal a significant Persian 
force (Xenophon Anabasis 2.4.16), and that (in Aristoboulos' version of a mas- 
sacre in the Polytimetus valley) the Scythians hide in a paradeisos in order to 
ambush Caranus and Andromachus (Arrian Anabasis 4.6.1) is of little utility in 
the absence of clear indication of army size - though in context Chauon is 
probably larger than Behistun (a minimum of 27.5 ha) - while the parade of 
11,000 hoplites and 2,000 peltasts in the Celaenae paradeisos (Xenophon Anaba- 
sis 1.2.9) provides only a minimum and one that is certainly unhelpful, since the 
space actually required by the soldiers must be very well short of anything which 
could be called a 'large' hunting-paradeisos. 12 Similarly tantalizing is Xenophon's 
reference to the 'large' paradeisos in N.Syria which Cyrus army cut down (the 
adjacent palace was merely burned). I rather suspect that large means "large by 
Greek standards for a garden". 

There are several Anatolian and Levantine instances in which the word 
paradeisos is known or presumed (on the basis of modern toponyms) to have 
become the proper name of a particular locality - presumably because the 
paradeisos came to be perceived as a major landscape feature. 73 But this develop- 

70 Edgar (ad loc.) describes the paradeisos where roses are grown (PCZ 59269) as "the park", 
and Rostovtzeff speaks of a "large park (paradeisos)" with ornamental trees, vines, fruits, 
flowers. In both cases certain assumptions about the implications of the word, especially in 
connection with a high-status figure like Apollonius, have been at work, not necessarily 
rightly. Husson 1988 trades on similar presuppositions in arguing that the phrase paradei- 
sos truphes in LXX Genesis 3.23f reflects the translators* knowledge of Lagid royal 
gardens. I do not, of course, deny that there were royal gardens (PSI 488 mentions basilikos 
kepos in Memphis), only that the word paradeisos has any exclusive connection with them. 
Babylon: An Anab .1. ,25. Nothing further can be found out about this; the area is unexcava- 
ted and textual evidence (George 1987: 26f on the regions Kumar, Tuba and Bab-Lugalirra) 
is unhelpful. Didyma: Gunther 1971: 97f = BuIl.Epig. 1973: 389 (3rd c. CE)]. 
Kawami 1992: 93 arbitrarily locates Chauon at Taq-i Bustan. (Eilers 1971: 18 n.14 connects 
Chauon with Choana in PlinJVT/ 6.214.) - On a usual rule-of-thumb 13,000 troops would 
^cupy 13,000 square metres (= 1 .3 ha), the equivalent of a square whose side is about 1 15 







■ m 

'. !' «* 
!: I *r 


Tralles: I.TraII.250 (3rd c. CE). Anzitene: John of Ephesus de beads orientalibus (cf. RE 
v nA 178). Cilician R. paradeisos: Steph.Byz. s.v. paradeisos. Cilician village called 
Paradeisos: Pliny NH 5.93; Leo Tact. PG 107.772. (These last two are tentatively associa- 



Chapter 2. The Parks and Gardens of the Achaemenid Empire 

ment does not prove that an exceptionally large paradeisos was involved; a 
concatenation of smaller ones might be just as relevant (Triparadeisos near the 
source of the Orontes at least suggests that). As with the named partetas what 
matters is how much the paradeisos sticks out from the landscape and whether its 
creation occasions the need for a toponym where none existed previously. One 
may compare the story in Plutarch Artoxerxes 25 about an incident in northern 
Media: during an emergency retreat from Cadusia the Persian army was compel- 
led to cut down pines and cypress-trees in some beautiful paradeisoi beside a 
royal stathmos, because the whole of the surrounding landscape was treeless. 
These do not have to be extensive paradeisoi, but the locale sounds like one that 
one could imagine acquiring the toponym Paradeisos. More generally, one must 
stress that in a landscape as naturally desolate as e.g. that around Persepolis (cf. 
Koch 1992: pl.4) the establishment of groups of trees is likely to have a greater 
impact than in the comparatively greener (if scrubby) environments of the Greek 
world, whether in western Anatolia, the islands or the mainland. Survey suggests, 
of course, that in the Achaemenid era the plain immediately west of the Persepo- 
lis terrace was occupied by a town. But one is entitled to suspect that the land 
beyond that (like the land around Susa) gave an appearance more reminiscent of 
desert and oases than anything normally encountered in the Aegean world. The 
effect of this in turn might, understandly, be to engender more refinement in the 
design of tree-gardens and a greater sense of their specialness - irrespective of 
their size. 74 

Contents. There is a capital distinction between (1) hunting and (2) botanical 

1. Plutarch Moralia 1084B wrote that the Stoic identification of virtues, 
vices, skills, and emotions as "animals" amounts to turning every human being 
into a paradeisos, mandra or wooden horse full of unruly creatures. More 
mundanely Xenophon envisages Cyrus the elder instructing his satraps to acquire 
paradeisoi and stock them with huntable animals (Cyropaedia 8.6.12), and such 
things are attested at Dascyleium which offered hunting both in enclosed pa- 
radeisoi and in open country (Hellenica 4.1.15f) and Celaenae which had many 
animals in a large paradeisos where Cyrus hunted when he wanted exercise. 75 
There are overtones here which become explicit in Cyropaedia 8. 1.38 - the elder 
Cyrus hunts animals en wis paradeisois when there is insufficient time for a 
proper hunting trip - and 1.3.14, 1.4.5,1 1, in which paradeisos-hunting is defini- 
tely second best, since the animals are virtually tied up and are mangy, lame and 
maimed by contrast with the splendid creatures of mountain and meadow. Dio of 

ted with modern Bertiz or Pertus.) Fraidisi (near Tripolis): Sapin 1990: 86f. Fereidis (near 
Sidon). Phordesia (Jerusalem): Milik 1961 (6th c. CE). Triparadeisos: Diod.18.39.1, 19.12.2. 
paradeisos: Plin.A/tf 5.82, Strab. 16.2.19. Ptolem.5.14.6, 1.2 p.977.9, Herod. GG 3.2.44V, 

ia S 1 (= Hermd [Br ° Wn 1969: 76]) or < near ) Ribla (Dussaud 1927:1 12). 

t ml 00 " 1 ™ 1 ° f P aradeisos and desert emerges in some Egyptian documents (P.Lond.204J, 
UPZ 1 14 I 10, II 10,33,37). (P.Oxy.3205 and BGU 1772 even offer khersos paradeisos). 

75 Anabasis 1 .2.11 All signs had evidently gone by the time of Dio of Prusa, whose laudatwoX 
Celaenae (35.12f) says nothing about it 

\ 111 
if I: 

B. Achaemenid Material 


Prusa (3.1350, deploring the inappropriateness of Persike thera to a good king, 
and Philostratus (Apollonius 1 .38) put the point more emotionally, describing the 
animals as "enslaved" and "tortured". Whether this view represents a purely 
Hellenic scale of values is hard to know: people occasionally claim that Achae- 
menid or sub- Achaemenid representations of hunting scenes are set in a paradei- 
soi; but (as already noted: p.90) there is no good reason to accept this, and even if 
there were it would not prove that serious Persian hunters were any less attracted 
than Xenophon to the open country. It is worth stressing that there is no evidence 
for the landscape inside a hunting paradeisos being categorically different from 
that of open country. Certainly none of the information about artificial arrang- 
ment and ornament which we shall see in due course have anything to do with the 
enclosures to which animals were (to judge by the Cyropaedia passages above) 
brought simply to be hunted down. There is, of course, another possibility, that 
the ground was completely levelled and cleared like the space within which 
Assurbanipal's lion hunt was enacted. But that space was apparently only tempo- 
rarily enclosed, whereas there is no reason at all to doubt that Achaemenid 
perieirgmenoi paradeisoi (Xenophon Hellenica 4.1.11) were surrounded by a 
permanent construction - like the mudbrick wall around the supposed Sasanid 
hunting park near Taq-i Bustan (cf. Schmidt 1940: pl.96). Moreover, none of the 
direct textual evidence about Achaemenid hunting ever suggests the degree of 
artificial ritualism characteristic of the Assurbanipal image, and one hesitates to 
infer anything of the sort from the analogy drawn by Meuli 1975 between neo- 
Assyrian lion hunts and the Achaemenid practice of "netting" a defeated rebel 
territory. 76 

The three post-Xenophontic sources just cited are all authors who may have 
been inspired by the Xenophontic passages. The hunting-parade isos under that 
name has little independent existence in the post-Achaemenid and/or non-Xeno- 
phontic tradition, for all that that tradition knew about Persian hunting (and royal 
hunting at that). Curtius does not use paradeisos of Sogdian Bazaira (8.1.3f). 
Plutarch Demetrius 50 does refer to paradeisoi with wild animals in the Syrian 
Chersonese, but the only other text which even contains a hint is Clearchus* 
reference (43 Wehrli) to the Lydians creating paradeisoi and making them 
"garden-like" (kepaioi) - as though there were a sort which was not garden-like. 
Other texts distinguish between paradeisoi and opportunities for hunting: e.g. 
Arrian Indica 40 describes the central zone of Persis as containing paradeisoi and 
- separately - game, the facilities surrounding Tigranocerta include paradeisoi 
and numerous hunting areas (Appian Mithridatica 380), and on Diodorus' fan- 
tasy Atlantic island (5.9) and Longus' Lesbos (4.2f, 4.11) the hunting is quite 
separate from the paradeisoi. 

76 cf. Anderson 1985: 68. The 100 stade aulaiai ("curtains") used by Leonnatus and Menelaus 
(Phylarch.81 F41) to enclose hunting grounds (cf. Plut.A/ejc.40, attributing similar things to 
Philotas) probably represent extravagant versions of greco-macedonian practice (cf. Ander- 
son 1985: 78) rather than indirect testimony to an Achaemenid parallel for Assurbanipal's 
ritual killing ground. 

• i. ! t 


J a 

I; • (wo* 

M © 
1 1 O 

■ ::J 


Chapter 2. The Parks and Gardens of the Achaemenid Empire 

The only explicit indication of the size of any hunting paradeisos is 
Xenophon's unhelpful description of the one at Celaenae as "large" (Anabasis 
1.2.7). But the whole thrust of the evidence (including particularly Plutarch's 
unforced assimilation with a mandra) seems more consistent with relatively 
modest scale. If the creation of a hunting paradeisos involved the f encing-off of 
huge tracts of country, it is hard to see why this should not come through in the 
sources. One may also note that the only two quantitatively large paradeisoi on 
record (cf. p.97) have no hunting associations. 

2. Xenophon provides vague general descriptions of the contents of "botani- 
cal" paradeisoi: "fine things which the earth is willing to put forth" (kala kagatha 
ha ge phuein thelei: Oeconomicus 4.14) and "everything which the seasons 
produce" (panta hosa horai phuousi: Anabasis 1.4.10). 77 Ctesias and Diodorus 
speak quite uninformatively about phytourgeia or phyta. 1% Certain very late 
sources on the other hand - Aristaenetus 1.3, Longus 4.2f and Achilles Tatius 
1.15 - offer extensive descriptions which speak of trees (fruit and non-fruit), 
flowers, water sources, birds (both wild and relatively domesticated - i.e. swans, 
peacocks), and in one case a temple. Most sources of course fall between these 
extremes. Three features deserve comment. 

(i) Water. Photius Lexicon 383.2 defines a paradeisos as a peripatos with 
trees and water, and various descriptions evoke springs, irrigation systems or 
rivers/streams as features of the paradeisos or of the landscape which contains 
paradeisoi? 9 

It is notable in this context that, despite autopsy, Xenophon's account of 
Dascyleium (above p.80) says nothing of the lake which is arguably the most 
prominent feature of the place and is mentioned in Hellenica Oxyrhyncia 22[17].3. 

B. Achaemenid Material 




The same terminology recurs in Procop.aet/. 1.3.6: Pege has a paradeisos well provided 

with seasonal plants, as well as a cypress wood and a flower-meadow - and in Longus' 

description of a kepos (2.3). 

Ctes.688Fl = Diod.2.13.1, 3 (phytourgeion); Diod.14.80.2 (phyta). 

Spring: Procop.r ------ 


(outside the walls of Constantinople; „«* „ FM iuu CwyJ v * ^v~ F . -„ - 

[garden spring in the pardes]. Irrigation system: Hanging Gardens (see n.89); Behistun 
(Ctes. 688F1 = Diod.2.13.1); Pasargadae tomb (Aristob.139 F 51). Such a thing was 
apparently lacking in Susa, where water had to be drawn by animals (Ctes. 688F34). 
Egyptian paradeisoi have wells (SB 2376; P.Koln 100; ? UPZ 117 I 5) or springs (BGU 
2376) and are watered from canals (P.Mich.272), through hudragogoi (P.Mich.45) and by 
watering machines (P.Athen.17; P.Oxy.639). Rivers and streams: XenAnab. 1.2.7 (Ce- 
laenae), 1.4.10 (Dardatas); PluU/c.24 (Sardis); Gen.2.10 (four rivers in the paradeisos 
[LXX] of Eden); Etan in Judaea is made pleasant by paradeisoi and flowing streams QosAJ 
8.186); the paradeisos in Arr.4.6.1 (Aristobulus) may be identical with what the main 
source (presumably Ptolemy) saw as a glen, perhaps centred round an affluent of the nearby 
Polytimetus. Artificial water supplies might be inferred in the paradeisoi in Diod.19.21.3J, 
where the area had aulonas puknous fcai enskious kai paradeison phyteias poikilas, eti de 
pantodapon dendron phusikas sunauleias kai phuseis hudaton). (In Diod.5.19, Joseph.^ 
12.229, Long.2M paradeisoi are formally distinguished from places with water.) Note that 
sources quite often indicate multiple water sources in paradeisoi. 

Of course neither the hunting nor txee-paradeisoi need have been by the lake; nor 
can we tell whether they were traversed by the well fish-stocked river or frequen- 
ted by the birds "to be caught by those who know how" to which Xenophon refers 
(presumably lake-dwelling water birds of the sort still plentiful at the site and 
allegedly reflected on seastone images from the palace). 80 But the overriding 
point to stress is that these passages, often adduced as a classic description of the 
joys of paradeisoi, actually disconnect the paradeisoi from other features of the 
place (which also include a palace, houses and villages) and we should not 
assume that the outer bounds of the paradeisos embrace all other highlighted 
features or naturally ran up against the lake. (Indeed some of the paradeisoi and 
the houses which are mentioned alongside them may have been elsewhere in 
Hellespontine Phrygia.) Silence about the lake at Dascyleium draws attention to 
another point; smaller, and artificial, lakes - as distinct from rivers, springs and 
irrigation channels - are never mentioned as a feature of a paradeisos; Appian's 
account of the area of Tigranocerta (Mithridatica 380) even lists lakes as a 
separate item from the paradeisoi. Arrian's account of central Persis (Indica 40) 
does something similar, though given the geographical scope of the description 
this may not be significant. 81 The closest to an exception are the bathing-pools in 
the west bank paradeisos at Babylon (Arrian Anabasis 7.25) and an imaginary 
Indian paradeisos in Philostratus Apollonius 2.27 - with which one may also 
compare the place where Susannah was spied on by the elders. But none of these 
is strictly and solely an ornamental artificial pool. This absence recalls the 
circumstances of the inner garden at Pasargadae but contrasts with post-antique 
Iranian (and other) garden traditions. (Grimal 1957 notes this contrast in referen- 
ce to the paradeisos in Longus 4.2.) 

(ii) Flowers appear in the three late extensive descriptions, but rarely else- 
where. 82 Roses were grown in one of Apollonius' Fayum paradeisoi (PCZ 
59269) and parados-land in BGU 1899 seems to include acanthus and lotus. 83 
Dioscorides has akanthos, phyllitis and triphyllon growing in paradeisoi (3.17.1, 
107.1, 4.110). Libanius (progymnasmata 12,30.14) compares a beautiful face 

80 T.Bakir assumes the paradeisos lay along the lake between the palace site and the area of 
the modern bird-sanctuary on the NE shore (personal communication). Robert 1980: 269 
n.65 already described the land east of the lake as having isolated pear and oak trees in 
fields and heathland suitable for hunting on horseback. - Apart from the lake Xenophon's 
description also neglects the town-site round the palace hill; but he may have regarded town 
and palace as forming a single whole, categorized as basileia, so we should not perhaps start 
seriously questioning the genuineness of his autopsy. - Another notable lake absent in a 
Xenophontic narrative is Aksehir Golii, near Thymbrion and the Fountain of Midas. 
Manfredi 1986: 52 suggests that it is unmentioned because, being a salt lake, it was 
logistically and militarily useless. 

8 1 Will 1 983: 1 97 imagines a lake in the Araq el Emir paradeisos. Josephus actually speaks of 
a moat around the fortress (AJ 12.229f). - The royal fish ponds of Plat.Po/if.264C are 
without context and could as well be Egyptian as Persian. 

82 Long.4.2f, Achill.Tat. 1.15, Aristaen. 1.3. . 

8 3 The rose-growing in PCZ 59735, 59736, BGU 1 1 19 is not said to occur in ^paradeisos. The 
poppies in PCZ 59359 are connected with a kepos. 



! » ■** 

I J* 

J •*« 


i : : 



Chapter 2. The Parks and Gardens of the Achaemenid Empire 

B. Achaemenid Material 


with a paradeisos of flowers. Cicero (de senectute 59) unauthoritatively adds 
flowers to Xenophon's description (Oeconomicus 4.20) of Cyrus* Sardis pa- 
radeisos (they are not the only possible source of the numerous pleasant smells 
mentioned by the Greek author 84 ); Philo mentions flowers in the Hanging Gar- 
dens of Babylon, but passingly and alone of all the sources (n.89); Hesychius (s.v. 
asphodelos) associates the asphodel with paradeisoi', and Geoponica 10.1 advi- 
ses the planting of flowers, in order to attract bees, but certainly categorizes the 
paradeisos as essentially a tree-plantation (tree-cultivation being the subject of 
book 10). Two passages of Clement of Alexandria (Stromateis, 6,1.2.1) 
imply that parade isoi are characteristically connected with trees rather than with 
kepeuomena spermata or flowery meadows, and the great majority of texts which 
give any insight into the content of paradeisos cohere with this judgment, for 
over and over again it is trees of all sorts, whether fruit or otherwise, which are 
mentioned. 85 The only other commodities which turn up are (a) the balsamon 



Fruit-trees smell nice as well: e.g. Aristaen.1.3, Paus. 1.21.7. There is no identifying the 
"beautifully scented varieties" in the palace paradeisos of Queen Candace of Ethiopia 
(HistAlex.Magn.L 61.20). 

(1) Literary sources. Undefined trees: Xen.Oec.4.14; Photius /ex.383.2; Hesychius s.v. 
ernokomos; Diod.5.19 (Atlantic island); Procop.4.6 (Vandals);</.6.7 (Mt Aurasi* 
on); Xen.HellAA.33 (Dascyleium); Xen.Oec.4.20 (Sardis); Clearchus 43^4 (Lydia; sha- 
de); Nehemiah 2.8 (Palestine: Mouterde 1942/3 identified this with the area of the Hadrianic 
forest reserve in the hinterland east of Berytus, Byblos and Bothrys [RE s.v.Libanos 5], in 
which case we are dealing with cedars); Joseph.57 6.62 (Jerusalem: "long adorned with 
trees and paradeisoi is presumably hendiadys); Hanging Gardens (see n.89: all kinds 
which give pleasure and shade); XcnAnab. 2.4.14, 16 (Sittace; all kinds of trees); 
Diod.19.21.3 (Susa-Persepolis: implicitly the paradeisoi provide artificial tree-emplace- 
ments); Pasargadae (Str.730; AnAnab. 6.29.4 - all kinds); ArrAnab. 4.6.1 (Sogdiana; the 
army concealment must imply trees); Aiistoph.histanim.epit.2A30 (Indian shade-provi- 
ding trees). Fruit or spice trees: AclVH 1.33 (pear); Geop.2.26, 3.13 (olives, nut-trees, 
cherry); CantA.U (pomegranates); Hist.Monach.AegypU 8.250, 10.137 (vines, pears, figs, 
nuts);Procop.3.17 (Vandals: trees full of fruit); Aristaen.1.3 (various fruit-trees); Long.4.2f 
(apple, pear, myrtle, pomegranate, fig, olive, vine). Diod.17.110 describes Bagistaneasa 
land of karpima dendra and all things proper to apolausis\ given the parallel between the 
latter and Diodoran comment on gardens or paradeisoi at Sicyon and Sardis (20.102.4; 
14.80.2), this passage surely refers to the Behistun paradeisos. Non-fruit trees: Long.4.2; 
Anstaen.1.3 (plane, cypress); Ach.Tat.1.15 (ivy, smilax, plane, pine); Geop.3A3 (pine, 
elm); Daniel 13.4,7 (holm-oak; mastic); Theophr.f/P 4.5.6, Pliny NH 12.71 (Rhegium: 
plane); Theophr.5.8.1 (Syria: cedars); Theophr.4.4.1 = Plut.648C (Babylonia; box, lime); 
Strab.16.1.1 1 (741) (Babylon: cypress); PlutArtox.25 (N. Media; pine, cypress); Strab.15.1.68 
= Megasthenes (E.of Euphrates: laurel, myrtle, box, ivy, laurel); Hist.Alex.Magn. A 3.17.27, 
B 3.17.13, G 3.17.17 (talking cypress trees in India). 

(2) Documentary sources. For Persepolis material cf. p.94 above. CT 22.1981 has vines and 
I.Mylas.206 undefined trees. Egyptian paradeisoi can contain (one or more of) undefined 
phuta (P.Mich.272, P.Koln 100), laurel (PCZ 59125, 59184), pines (PCZ 59157), soft-fruit 
trees such as fig, pomegranate, apricot, apple, pear (PCZ 59033 [6 varieties of figl. 
P.Mich.24 182-183, 193, P.Tebt.815 fr.5.39, P.Oxy.639, SB 7262), persea (P.Herm.7 II 
Snl!"!, 59 ° 33 [U varieties ]» PSI 650, P.Tebt.815 fr.5.39, P.Gur.8), olives (PCZ 

30, 567, 603, P.Ryl.195, P.Tebt.343.69, 815 fr.2 r.65, P.Lond.933, P.Mich.45, P.Warren 12, 

grown in just two paradeisoi in Syria, one of them near Jericho and very 
famous, 86 (b) the spices mentioned in Song of Songs 4.13f - if they are rightly 
understood as part of the pardes, and (c) grass, e.g. in the meadow by Cyrus' 
tomb (Aristobulus 139 F 51) or the meadows which are part of Tissaphernes' 
paradeisos at Sardis (Plutarch Alcibiades 24) or the erotikos paradeisos of 
Aristaenetus 1.3, 87 and (in Egyptian paradeisoi or land subject to paradeisos-tzx) 
such things as cucumber (P.Hamb.99), thyme (BGU 1896.147f, 303f), beans 
(P.Oxy.3205), lakhana (P.Giss.Univ.3.8, BGU 1896: 4.95), corn and arakos (SB 
12208, BGU 2441.61). 

On the matter of internal arrangement there are several points to make, (i) 
The trees could be rather thickly planted. Longus postulates this in his Lesbian 
paradeisos (4.2); the alleged ambush site at Sittace is "thick with all sorts of 
trees" (dasus pantoion dendron: Xenophon Anabasis 2.4.9); and the tomb of 
Cyrus was almost hidden by the surrounding trees (Strabo 15.3.7). In general 
terms the aspect of a paradeisos will obviously have varied a good deal depen- 
ding on the type of trees involved, (ii) Cyrus' paradise at Sardis had rows of trees 
at right angles to one another (Xenophon Oeconomicus 4.20 - Cicero de senectu- 
te 59 arbitrarily glosses this as quincunx layout). Geoponica 10.1 stipulates that 
things should be laid out kata genos, not mixed up; and the same point appears in 
Clement of Alexandria (7. 18. 1 1 1) who contrasts paradeisoi in which things are 
planted in rows (en stoikhoi) with a shady mountainside covered by a mixed 
forest of laurel, pine, apple, olive and figs (these are no doubt implicitly also 
possible parade taw-trees). The grammarian Aristophanes observes that in luxu- 
rious paradeisoi (en tois habrois ton paradeison) people plant shady trees en 
stoikhoi {hist.anim.epit. 2.130). The paradeisos in Longus 4.2 has the fruit and 
non-fruit trees kept separate and contains other internal divisions, and the de- 
scription of the outer non-fruit trees "standing guard" over the inner orchard 

P.Columb.l v.6.46), date-palms (BGU 1896.108, 1899, PSI 33, 240, P.Tebt.815 fr.2 r.65, 
fr.5.39, SB 7188, 7262, 11711, P.Oxy.639, P.Mich.272, P.Koln 100, PFouad 67r, BGU 
1740). The inter-relation of the last three categories with paradeisoi is variable. Paradeisos 
and vineyard are distinguished in formal definitions of liability to apomoira and in many 
texts directly or indirectly related to this. Attestations of vines in paradeisoi appear to be 
consonantly fairly rare, though P.Tebt.61al58, 64a2 effectively use paradeisos and vi- 
neyard interchangeably of the same plot. Both olive-groves and palm-groves are also 
sometimes distinguished from parade isosAznd (PCZ 59157, 59184, P.Strasb.619, PHels.16), 
but the normal trend is for assimilation and this is registered also by the coinages 
elaidnoparadeisos (PSI 33, P.Oxy.639, BGU 50, 567, 603, CPR 1.24.14 = 1.25.11,208.2, 
P.Lond.933, SB 9387, 11113, P.Warr.12, P.Heidelb.310, P.Mil.Vogl.23, PCohgr.XV 15), 
phoinikoparadeisos (PSI 240, P.Mich.Tebt.272, BGU 1896.108, P.Herm. 7 II 8, 30.4) and 
even elaidnophoinikoparadeisos (SB 11711.9), though these surely reflect a residual fee- 
ling of categoric difference as well. It is characteristic of the whole situation that a 
specifically named elaidnoparadeisos turns out to contain fruit and dates (P.Oxy.639). 
Jos.£/ 4.467; Theophr.f/P 9.6.1,4; Posidon.87F70 = Strab. 1 6.2.4 1. Josephus adds myroba- 
tonon, palm-trees, cypress. For myrobalanon cf. Alexander Romance A 3.17.27, B 3.17.13, 
G 3.17.17. 

Meadow and paradeisos are distinguished in Vrocop.aed 1.3, 6.7, Arr.Ind.40. - What the 
other "beautiful things" besides trees are in Xen.Oec.4.14 is hard to say. 




' 3 ?- 

=i f b 

; i: Wt 

: ! (Jl 

It It 


> at*' 


! W 


Chapter 2. The Parks and Gardens of the Achaemenid Empire 

arguably hints at their being planted in neat rows. This is perhaps one significant 
distinction between this place and the so-called kepos described in Longus 2.3f 
(see below 126 n.151). 88 (iii) Sources occasionally explicitly postulate dromoiot 
peripatoL Most entertaining is Photius' report (lexicon 383.2) that the comedians 
used the word paradeisos to refer to individuals of exceptional insensibility, 
since a paradeisos was only a peripatos - something to be trampled on - with 
trees and water; and the association of paradeisos and walkways explains e.g. 
Lucian's willingness to call the Academy a paradeisos (Vera Historia 2.23) or 
the way the Rhegion paradeisos apparently turned into a gymnasium (Theophra- 
stus HP 4.5.6, Pliny NH 12.7). (iv) Texts and images encourage the belief that 
Neo- Assyrian royal gardens were landscaped to the extent of containing artificial 
hills (above p.88). Interestingly the only clear comparable hints in paradeisos 
sources are the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, which were supposed to produce a 
mountain-like effect and Semiramis' Median paradeisos which has a palace on a 
high mountain in the middle - though with no clear suggestion of artificiality. 89 
Neither item is a Persian creation, though the Hanging Gardens were allegedly 
meant to please the nostalgic taste of a Persian or Median queen (Amytis = 
*Humati, wife of Nebuchadnezzar II: Eilers 1971: 17). An absolutely logical 
reading of Xenophon Cyropaedia 8.8.15 would imply that trees and rocks are an 
already artificial source of shade which Persians in an excess of decadence 
supplement by the use of parasols. But it is fairly certain that the passage should 
not be pressed in this fashion. Francis 1980: 69 describes the Persians as "lands- 
cape architects", but the archaeological evidence of Persian gardens mentioned at 
the beginning has no hint of heavy manipulation of the contours of the land; and 
when greco-roman sources want to complain about Achaemenid Kings interfe- 
ring with nature they confine their attention to the Hellespont Bridge or the Athos 
canal - enterprises which, like military road building or the building of siege 
mounds (both of them also neo-Assyrian practices), prove the Achaemenid King 
had the resources and capacity for landscape gardening. 90 

B. Achaemenid Material 





I do not know why Birge 1982: 133 thinks the plane-trees in the paradeisos at Rhegium 
(Theophr.//P 4.5.6) were arranged in a semicircle. 

Hanging Garden: Diod.2.10.1f (? Cleitarchus: cf. Bigwood 1978: 45 n.ll); Curt.5.1.35; 
Strab.16.1.5; Philo Byz.; Beross.680F8 = Joseph .A/>. 1.141 and JosephA/ 10.220; Plut.342B. 
Compare Langdon 1912: 84 ii 16, 106 ii 24,138.54f for the mountain comparison applied by 
Nebuchadnezzar to a construction probably in the vicinity of what current orthodoxy 
regards as the garden's site. For this orthodoxy see Wiseman 1982, 1985. Stevenson 1992 
offers a different detailed reconstruction, concentrating particularly on the irrigation system 
and producing a series of relatively small gardens in a descending terrace, each of which is 
rather more like the paradeisos of the general source material than is Wiseman's open park. 
Dalley 1994 presents a much more radical and attractive interpretation, arguing that the 
Hanging Garden was that created by Sennacherib next to the "Palace without Rival" in 
Nineveh and shown in BM 124939 (cf. n.20 above). - Median paradeisos: Ctes,688Fl = 

Tubero's description of Lucullus as Xerxes togatus (Plut.L«c.39, Vell.Pat.2.33.4, PlinJW 
9.170), though mentioned in connection with Lucullus* landscape architecture, is surely 
based on Hellespont and Athos and not independent evidence about Achaemenid gardening. 

(iii) Buildings within paradeisoi figure in various ways: diatribai kai kata- 
phygai at Sardis (Plutarch Alcibiades 24), oikeseis at Labraunda (I. Labraund. 
8.18f), diaitai basilikai in the Hanging gardens (cf. n.89 - these were not separate 
buildings, but recesses in the side of the artificial mountain), a kamara and oikia 
(of obscure inter-relationship) in the west bank Babylon paradeisos (Arrian 
Anabasis 7.25), swimming pools (ibid.; Philostratus Apollonius 2.27), tombs of 
King Manasseh (Josephus AJ 10.41; II Chronicles 33.20 [LXX]) and Cyrus the 
Elder (Aristobulus 139 F 51), an altar of Tyche (Gunther 1971: 97f = BE 1973: 
389), a temple of Dionysus (Longus 4.2) and a set of grand edifices on the high 
rock in the centre of Semiramis' Median paradeisos (Ctesias 688F1 = Diodorus 
2.13.3). In Diodorus 5.19, where there are paradeisoi and gardens (kepeiai) 
accompanied by epauleis and kothonisteria (banquet houses), the latter are speci- 
fically associated with the gardens, so the former may specifically belong with 
the paradeisoi - though they could equally well belong with neither or rather 
simply represent another landscape feature of indeterminate relationship to pa- 
radeisoi and gardens. (The epaulis of Longus 4.1 1 evokes similar uncertainty.) 
Many of these quasi-residential items sound like rather temporary places of 
resort. 91 Procopius 4.6 does by contrast describe people (the African Vandals, a 
habrotaton genos with a taste for Persian dress) as living in paradeisoi - but even 
then the parallel material in 3.17 perhaps suggests that we should envisage 
palaces with paradeisoi attached. There is similar room for doubt about other 
references to living in paradeisoi. (a) Dio 79.6 says that a stupid man will never 
be happy even if he gets to live in the Susa paradeisos which was allegedly 
entirely "up in the air" (meteor os). This is surely not evidence for a garden on the 
palace mound of Susa (though such a thing could well have existed, and has been 
independently postulated [see above p.90]), but a confusion with the Hanging 
Gardens of Babylon; and the point is that the place is (a) a wonder of luxury but 
(b) would not in normal reckoning be a place to live in permanently, (b) Cle- 
archus 43: "for the sake of luxury the Lydians created paradeisoi and, making 
them garden-like, lived in the shade, thinking it more luxurious that the sun's rays 
should not fall on them at all". But this is simply including paradeisoi within a 
general stereotype contrast between rich and poor and their respective protection 
from or exposure to the sun (cf. Plato Republic 556D, Phaedrus 239C). (c) 
Xenophon says that paradeisoi are found everywhere where the King goes and 
that he passes time (diatribei) in such paradeisoi whenever the season permits. 
But we should not over-interpret this. Xenophon is seeking to put the most 
"agricultural" construction he can upon the habits of Achaemenid Kings, and 
roay be exaggerating the facts that royal residences had paradeisoi in their 
vicinity and Achaemenid Persians had a taste for the (shaded) outdoor life. 
Granted the type of arrangements postulated archaeologically at the Pulvar pa- 
lace and Pasargadae one can see how easy the over-interpretation would be. In 

9 1 cf. Hesych.s.v. {paradeisos: basileos katalusis). - The store-house (hupodokhe) and drying- 
mn^/L.f....- . .. . — >- 'course, strenuously functional. 

a piece of land of which another 

w - nes ycn.s. v. (paradeisos: basileos katalusis). - The store-hou. 

room (heliasterion) in P.Mich.272 and P.Ryl.206.47 are, of course, strenuously functional. 

UPZ 11715 mentions a tower, but strictly as one feature of a pie 

i J :■. 






f ! 

feature is a paradeisos. 



Chapter 2. The Parks and Gardens of the Achaemenid Empire 

any event we are not required to infer that paradeisoi as such contained edifices 
for more than day-time use. 92 

(iv) It is worth stressing the lack of evidence for animals being kept in 
botanical paradeisoi. Xenophon' s description of Dascy leium does mention birds, 
but they are not part of the, paradeisoi - and are in any case available to be hunted! 
Most other references and descriptions do not go even that far. The sole exception 
is Achilles Tatius' inclusion of peacocks, swans and parrots in his imaginary 
Tyrian paradeisos (L15). The peacock is an exoticum - possibly attested in the 
Persepolis bureaucratic archive 93 - which famously first reached Athens as a gift 
from Artaxerxes I to Pyrilampes (Cartledge 1991), and it is certainly tempting to 
guess that the bird roamed the paradeisoi of satrapal and royal residences. But 
although Geoponica 14.18 (Didymus) says of the place in which peacocks are 



Long,4.2f appears to be the only source which exactly locates a particular building in 
relation to a paradeisos, placing the Dionysus temple in the very centre of the layout (cf. 
Grimal 1957: 212 fig.l). 

Hinz & Koch find peacocks in the Fortification tablets in the guise of a bird called basbas ' 
ba-is KI.MIN (PF 280, 697-8, 1722-1733, 1797, 1943: 23, 1945, 2014, 2034, E-2225, J- 
2213,J-2610,K2-1273,Sl-28,Sl-99,Sl-100,Sl-103,Sl-611,Sl-655,W-521,W-568 t 
W-574, W-757, W-2539, W-2672, W-2673, Fort.1364, Fort.3125, Fort.6831, Fort. 8621.) 
The word reproduces Akkadian paspasu = duck (Hallock 1969: 48) but must (it is argued) 
refer to something bigger and more important, for five reasons, (i) They have high rations, 
(The monthly rate is variously 30 QA (1943: 23, 1945), 10 QA (1724, 1728-1732, S-128, 
Sl-99, Sl-100, Sl-103, Fort.6831) or as a minimum 5 QA (1722, 1723, 1725, 1726,1733, 
Sl-61 1, Fort.1364, Fort.3125, Fort.8621). (ii) Their keepers have high rations (this may be 
true in K2-1273, but Hinz and Kock misconstrue Sl-61 1). (iii) Some texts refer to groups 
of basbas in which males preponderate hugely. Hinz & Koch quote W-568. One can addPF 
2014, W-2673, while W-2672 has slight gender disproportion and W-521 has a gender 
disproportion among chicks. (On the other hand the groups in PF 280, 1730, Sl-103 are 
evenly divided.). This is arguably due to male peacocks being what are need for show, (iv) 
One such group belongs to Queen Artystone (W-568). (v) They appear in over 40 texts 
(there are at least five texts in addition to those listed in Hinz & Koch), much more than the 

HH tCXtS f ° r iPPUr (g00se?) and 14 sudaba (duck?). Some counter-arguments can be 
adduced, (a) Frequency of attestation only favours the identification on certain assumptions 
about the priorities of the Persepolis archive (i.e. that it is more concerned with 'royal' 
phenomena than 'ordinary' ones), (b) The birds are described as Egyptian in PF 280, 
fort.6831 and perhaps Sl-28. Hinz & Koch assume that they were imported from Egypt 

his would be interesting if we knew that basbas were peacocks, but may seem improbable 
otherwise, (c) In the matter of ration-scales, it is true that sudaba (?duck) never go higher 
than 7.5 QA per month (Sl-98) and descend as low 3 QA per month (1746) - though there 
are very few relevant surviving texts - but ippur have exactly the same range of monthly 

rations as hnvhsir tUm^U ...:*i ... . J . A mini- 

rntin U l —-«« — y«i *////«/ nave CAacuy uic aaui^ i«"e,- — 

ra monsjs basbas, though with more intermediate steps between the maximum and mini 
QA: 1732-3, 1737-1740, 1742?, 1744, 2066,Fort.7091;7- 

OA- H«.i'n, 'i!.? 3 ' , 10 Q A: ""-Ji I/O l-l /W, 1/tZ.', l/ff,^uoo, !■«•'■ ■-'-• 

nnL ? A L 1741 : 6 QA: 1940; 5 QA:1736). But the ratio-scale argument is of 

uncertain weight. Such information as I have suggests that even the highest rate (30 QA - 

recorZ? 8 f" m ° mh) WOUld bare, y be sclent by itself to feed a peacock, and if f 

nvd ved "* Partial "° ne ° f them can be straightforwardly diagnostic of the 

B. Achaemenid Material 


kept "let it have much grass and paradeisos" there is no direct attestation that this 
is where Pyrilampes' gift lived before export. 94 As for animals other than birds - 
not a word. Ctesias (688 F 45d) claims to have seen a tiger (martikhora) and other 
animals sent to the Great King from India, and the "Tribute Bearer" frieze records 
a lion and an okapi (as well as more utilitarian camels, horses etc.) It is relatively 
easy to imagine the large felines ending up as victims in a hunting paradeisos, 
less easy (or palatable to modern taste) to imagine the same of the okapi. We 
might even reserve judgment about the felines, having in mind the Assyrian 
scenes of lions in gardens (above 84), which look very peaceable and ornamental. 
On the other hand the same cycle includes a scene with mastiff-handlers, so there 
is at least a hint of hunting. 

Location. Paradeisoi are normally found in the east and/or in the area of the 
(erstwhile) Achaemenid Empire. 95 A few exceptions may be noted, (a) A fantasy 
island in the Atlantic described by Diodorus (5.19) has paradeisoi and numerous 
gardens, (b) Procopius 3.17,4.6 envisages paradeisoi among the African Vandals 
and in the fertile uplands of Mt Aurasion - and the Vandals are explicitly aping 
Persian luxury, (c) Dionysius I of Syracuse planted plane trees in the paradeisos 
at Rhegion and presumably created the paradeisos in the first place (Theophra- 
stus HP 4.5.6). This could be envisaged as deliberate copying of oriental practice. 
(d) In 246 BCE the city of Itanos, part of a Ptolemaic protectorate in the extreme 
east of Crete, established a paradeisos as a temenos of Ptolemy Euergetes (SIG 3 
463). Here too there is an indirect oriental link. 

More locally sites, when specified, can be put into three categories. 

(i) City-related. A number of paradeisoi can be described in general terms as 
at or near a city or town: Rhegium (Theophrastus HP 4.5.6), Itanos (SIG 3 463: by 
the gate), Sidon (Diodorus 16.41.5), Sardis, Dascyleium and Celaenae (see [iii] 
below), Jerusalem (Josephus AJ 7347, 9.225: royal paradeisoi outside city), 
Gennesaret (Hesychius' gloss is "paradeisos of the rulers"), Sittace (Xenophon 
Anabasis 2.4.14,16), Oxyrhyncus (P.Oxy.3366; and n.69), Babylon and Susa. 96 
The agroi, vineyards and paradeisoi of Lucian Gallus 21 are in sight of the city 
wall, and some paradeisoi are more specifically associated with the proasteion. 
Thus Lucian Vera Historia 2.23 envisages an underworld Academy as a paradei- 
sos in the proasteion, Appian {Mithridatica 380) speaks of paradeisoi in the 
suburbs of Tigranocerta, and Josephus reports a proasteion in a 90 stade circle 
around Jerusalem containing "places adorned with trees and paradeisoi" 




Nor indeed are we explicitly told where Pyrilampes displayed them. - Birds are sometimes 

mentioned in texts on kepoi: Ar.Av.159, 238, 1067, 1089; anon.lyr.ap. P.Oxy. 2625 fr.i 

(b).8; Ar.HA 617b24 (hunted woodcocks); Liban.orar. 11.200; ps.-Liban./w#.12.9.5; 

Lc-ng.2.3; Zonar.7. 1 1 .9 (eagles in Tarquinius' palace garden). 

Paradeisos locations within the erstwhile empire but not in Asia include Constantinople 

(Procop.fl^.1.3.6) and Longus' Lesbos (4.2f). 

Babylon: AnAnab. 7.25 (west bank); Ephipp. 126 F 4 (Alexander's throne paradeisos); 

Theophr. HP 4.4.1 = Plut.A/or. 648C (paradeisoi to which Harpalus transplanted certain 

frees); Xen.Cyr.8.1.38 (hunting paradeisoi). Susa: Dio79.6 (meted ros paradeisos); Ctesias 

688F34 s Ael. NA 7.1, Plut.A/or. 974D (royal paradeisos or paradeisoi). 



: c» 

f ! ■ 




Chapter 2. The Parks and Gardens of the Achaemenid Empire 

(ta...dendresi kai paradeisois kekosmemena)? 1 (Comparable neo-Assyrian ima- 
ges can be cited. 98 ) Others again are in the plain near a city, as at Sardis (Sardis 
VII. 1), Labraunda (LLabraund. 8.18f) or Median Chauon (Ctesias 688F1 = 
Diodorus 2.13.3: on an upland plain). By the time we read of "very dense 
paradeisoi" (paradeisoi puknotatoi) spread throughout an area of some 45, 
near Jericho (Joseph./?/ 4.467) we are sliding towards a second category. 

(ii) Paradeisoi in the open countryside are found in a heavily populated 
region along the Susa-Persepolis road (Diodorus 19.21.3) and scattered throug- 
hout Diodorus' Atlantic Island (5. 19), at a royal stathmos in north Media (Plutarch 
Artoxerxes 25), at Etan (Josephus AJ 8.186), at Pege beyond the walls of Con- 
stantinople (Procopius Buildings 1.3.6), on a Lesbian hillside overlooking the sea 
(Longus 4.2), through the upper parts of Mt Aurasion (Procopius Wars 4.13, 
Buildings 6.7), in the Polytimetus valley (Arrian Anabasis 4.6.1) and by Mt 
Bagistanon (Ctesias 688F1 = Diodorus 2.10.1). At Dascyleium the paradeisoi 
shared the landscape with villages (Xenophon Hellenica 4.1.15f) and the Mnesi- 
machus text (Sardis VII. 1) shows Sardian plain paradeisoi defined as belonging 
in/to villages; the same thing appears in the Egyptian evidence (cf. p.98). Dascy- 
leium also, of course, also directs attention to a third category. 

(iii) Paradeisoi are associated with satrapal residences (urban and rural) both 
in reality" and in the novelists (Heliodorus 7.23; Historia Alexandri Magni L p. 
61.20; Chariton 4.2.8). They exist wherever the King goes and passes time 
(Xenophon Oeconomicus 4.13), for example at Sidon (Diodorus 16.41.5), and 
appear in conjunction with royal residences and palaces in Babylon and elsewhe- 



General comments, Diodorus (19.21.3) and Arrian (Indica 40) regard pa- 
radeisoi as a prominent feature of the Persian landscape. 101 They are not on the 

97 This is only meaningfully a proasteion if 90 stades is the circumference a circle of radius of 
less than 15 st. (2.25km). 

98 Albenda 1987: pl.105, 112; Barnett 1976: pl.xxxv,lxvi;Bamett&Forman 1960: pl.45,47,49; 
Reade 1991: 63 fig.93 = ANEP 204; Barnett & Falkner 1962: pl.xii, xxxii, xxxiv.Textual 
evidence: e.g. ARAB 1.792. Egyptian parallels: ANEP 324 (Kadesh) and 330 (Yanoam). 
Barnett & Falkner 1962: iv, lvi-lvii show trees on or inside city-walls. 

99 Dascyleium (Xen.HellAA.\5i, 33), Celaenae (Xen.AnabA.2Jf), R.Dardatas (ib. 1.4.10). 
Sardis (Diod. 14.80.2, Xen.Oec.4.20, Plut.A/c.24), and indeed everywhere (Xen.Cyr.8.6.12). 
The paradeisos at Tralles (I.Trall.250 [3rd c. CE]) may be there because it had been a 
Tissaphernes possession: cf. Descat 1992. - On the relationship of palace, city and paradei- 
sos at Dascyleium cf. n.80. The Celaenae paradeisos apparently lay east of Dinar, between 
the palace and the city (Manfredi 1986: 37). 

100 Hanging Gardens (n.89); Procop.3.17 (Vandals); Vhi\ostr Apollon. 2.27 (India); Strab.16.2.41 
(Jericho); Josephs/ 12.229 (Araq el Emir); Aristobul. 1 39 F 5 1 (Pasargadae); P.Tebt.703.21 If 
(dioecetic instructions to agent to list basilikai oikeseis and the paradeisoi attached to them: 
the general context of this document is, it should be noted, extremely utilitarian). Associa 
tion with other houses is rare: the paradeisos in Ach.Tat.1.15 is part of an oikia. 

Ctrok 1 C 1 1 -_ *1 « - . . r.L- 

! ' I! 

r -radeisos in Ach.Tat.1.15 is part oi an omu- 

101 Strab.15.3.1 on the other hand ignores them. Nor does Curtius' description of the Pfersepolis 
region (5.4.5) mention them. In Ctesias Semiramis is aetiologically made the creator of the 
tells that characterise the near eastern landscape, but her creation of paradeisoi is not 

B. Achaemenid Material 


other hand numerous in the Xenophon's Anabasis, which refers only to a hunting 
paradeisos at Celaenae (1.2.7) and two Xrte-paradeisoi (1.4.10, 2.4.14,16). But 
perhaps not too much should be inferred from this. Though Anabasis is for us a 
sort of snapshot of Persian imperial landscape, this is not why Xenophon wrote it. 
Both of the tree-paradeisoi are mentioned because they play a role in the story, 
and one may be inclined to infer not that things which could be called paradeisoi 
were actually rare (though perhaps they were rarer in Mesopotamia than elsewhe- 
re) but that ones worth wrecking (people speculate about Cyrus having some 
special animus against Belesys) or capable of hiding armies may have been. On 
the other hand, one may also feel that the paradeisos is evidently not an eccentric 
enough phenomenon (in Greek eyes) to force its way into the record for its own 

The texts frequently speak of multiple paradeisoi. 102 This is also true in texts 
which have even less precise localisations, e.g. Clearchus 43-44 (the Lydian 
paradeisoi), Plutarch Demetrius 50 (the hunting paradeisoi of the Syrian Cherso- 
nese), P.Dura 15 (several paradeisoi in an estate), Theophrastus HP 5.8.1 (the 
Syrian cyprtss-paradeisoi). The paradeisos landscape is typically not a matter of 
a single huge emplacement but of several more modest ones. Nor is this preclu- 
ded in many passages which only speak of a single paradeisos; Xenophon 
{Oeconomicus 4.20) may describe Cyrus showing a single Sardis paradeisos to 
Lysander, but it does not follow that it is huge or that there are not other similar 
ones in the adjacent landscape. One may compare the case of the balsamon 
paradeisos near Jericho. Posidonius 87 F 70 = Strabo 16.2.41 distinguishes it 
from a 100 stade long palm grove with katoikiai; Josephus BJ 1.361 = AJ 15.96 
absorbs the paradeisos into the palm-grove; and then in BJ 4.467 describes the 
same area as containing paradeisoi kallistoi kai pyknotatoi. 

At Dascyleium Pharnabazus says his inheritance included oikiai and animal- 
and \xtt-paradeisoi\ the inter-relation of these houses with the palace and the 
paradeisoi is obscure but I suspect they are distinct locations dotted through the 
countryside and set in or next to paradeisoi. The countryside also contains 
villages; there is an interweaving of paradeisoi and "ordinary" agricultural 
exploitation which matches Longus 4.2, where the paradeisos is one feature of an 
extensive rural estate or Geoponica 2.36 which concerns the inter-relation of 
paradeisos with threshing floors and other farm building. 

We might compare Dascylium with the baris at Araq el Emir in the verdant 
Wadi Sir 17 km west of Amman. 103 Josephus' description (AJ 12.229f) suggests 
luxurious appurtenances, including "large aulai adorned with paradeisoi... 
pammekeis'. But archaeological investigation establishes the existence not only 
of a handsome fortress with columned facades and a lion-and-eagle frieze placed 

102 Atlantic Island: Diod.5.19. Mt Aurasion: Procop.4.13, aed.6.1. Dascyleium: Xen. 
ffd/Al.15,33. Sardis: Sardis VII. 1. Labraunda: I.Labr.8.18. Kerkeosiris: Crawford 1971: 
44. Araq-el Emir: Joseph. AJ. 12.229f. Jerusalem: JosephA/ 9.225, BJ 6.62. Etan: AJ 
8.186. Jericho: BJ 4.467. Babylon: Xen.Cyr.8.L38; Theophr.i/P.4.4.1. Susa: AelJV-4 7.1. 

IQ 3 = Ramath Mizpeh (Jos.13.26) or Tyros (JosA/ 12.2290- See Dentzer & al. 1983, Will 
1983, Lapp and Will in Homes-Frederiq & Henessy 1986/9: ii 280-97, Lapp & Lappl993. 






i in*' 


Chapter 2. The Parks and Gardens of the Achaemenid Empire 

on an artificial terrace (the Qasr el ' Abd; Josephus' baris), but also of a village 
some 600 m. to the NE and over 200 hectares of terraced and irrigated agricultu- 
ral land, and it is important not to "over-interpret" the paradeisol Writers on the 
site are prone to regard the whole emplacement of baris, inhabitable caves (in the 
cliffs near the village) and water-features as (part of) "the paradeisos" (Dentzer 
& al. 1983: 207), and Will 1986/9: 292 defines this paradeisos as "essentially a 
game reserve and holiday resort". But this is not what Josephus says. For him the 
paradeisoi (plural) are part of the whole picture, not vice versa. Nor is there any 
justification for claiming that when Tobias gave dogs, camels, horses, onagers 
and hemionagers to Ptolemy II (PCZ 59075) they were the product of an animal 
breeding centre and (as such) reflected one of the "characteristic functions of a 
Persian paradeisos 9 ' (Dentzer & al. 1983: 207). The problem is not that strictly 
speaking Josephus' paradeisoi were created in the hellenistic era by Hyrcanus 
(the site may have been an important residence since Achaemenid times and will 
always have had the water resources to support paradeisoi); the problem is that 
the animal connection of Persian paradeisoi is exclusively as hunting parks. (See 
above, pp.lOOf, 108f.) The gift to Ptolemy simply reflects Araq el Emir's status 
as a working estate. (Hauben's investigation of onagers and hemionagers [1984/ 
6] is consonant with this.) It is true that Josephus describes the paradeisoi as 
adorning (kosmein) the aulai, but it does not follow that they are (entirely) non- 
utilitarian. (The potentially decorative character of a utilitarian garden is clear in 
Greek literature from Odyssey vii onwards.) The situation would perhaps be a 
good deal clearer if we could be absolutely sure what Josephus meant by aulai, 
but it is doubtful whether this condition can be met. Elsewhere in his writings he 
uses aule to mean (i) (royal) palace, (ii) the royal Court, or - occasionally - (m) 
the open courtyard within a larger building (BJ 5.227, 241; AJ 1.196, 10.91). The 
first of these may do for 12.231, where Josephus speaks of the water-arrange- 
ments connected with the caves as providing terpsis kai kosmos tes aules, but 
neither it nor the other senses suit the crucial phrase about aulai and paradeisoi. 
(After all we are not - or at least not literally - dealing with a single large building 
with multiple interior, tree-adorned courtyards.) It is not impossible that we 
should call to mind the use of the word and of cognates in other authors in 
reference to farms of parts of farms. 104 We could then suppose Josephus' me- 

104 (i) Aule = farmhouses / farmsteads: Dion.Hal.AK 5.26, 54; 6.31, 50; 8.12, 68, 87; 9.61; 
Luc.Asm.31 (the house of a nomeus); Plut.Nic.27; Long.3.5.1, 6.1, 10.2 (apparently an 
indifferent alternative for epaulis: cf. [iv]); Heliod.2.22; SIG 3 169. In SIG 3 46.5 aule 
perhaps means house + land. Various Homeric passages (e.g. Od. I4.5f) use aule of farms or 
farm-buildings, (ii) Aule or aulion = farmyard (with animals): Dio Prus.7.13, 18, 46 (where, 
however, the animals have almost all gone, and vines are being grown in the enclosure), dea Syr.41, AsinM (separate from the kepos)\ Dion.Hal.2.2; Long.4.1.3, 18.3. (MJ 
Aulion as a less well-defined, but modest feature: Aeschin.3.1 19 (A.points to epaulia an^ 
kerameia as signs that Cirrhan land is being used); (iv) Epaulis or epaulion = farmhouses 
farmsteads (of varying size: cf. RC p.334): Hdt.1.111 (home of a cowherd); E.ElecL . 
Diod.3.22; 5.19 (epauleis poluteleis, perhaps luxury villas); 12.43, 45, 78; 20.8 : (* 'M 
agroikiai are country villas and epauleis working farms), 83; Plut.Pomp.24, }os ' I ! J J'.' 
Long. 1.6.2, 22.3; 2.8.1, 24.3, 33.2; 4.15.4, 23.2, 29.2; Plut.508D; Polyb.4.4.1; SIG 344.? 


B. Achaemenid Material 


aning to be that Hyrcanus created a number of houses within the wadi, each with 
its own paradeisos - places evidently not substantive enough to leave significant 
archaeological trace and therefore most naturally to be interpreted as farmhouses 
with working gardens. Or we could stress the that essential sense of aule is 
"enclosure", and conclude that in Josephus' view, just as Hyrcanus interfered 
with nature by creating a hill for his baris to stand on and cutting inhabitable 
caves in the cliffs, so he marked off particular sections of the naturally fertile 
plain to contain (walled) paradeisoi. In that case, of course, the character and 
purpose of those paradeisoi would arguably remain obscure, though by that token 
not demonstrably purely recreational. The same would be true if (as a final 
possibility) we decided that Josephus was writing metaphorically as though the 
site as a whole - the aule of 12.23 1 - were a single palace with internal aulai. For 
this would amount to saying that Josephus might be conferring an air of frivolity 
on what were in reality practically productive entities. 

The potentially rather mundane and businesslike quality which we saw in the 
Persepolis documentation (p.96) is equally evident in three Babylonian docu- 
ments of the 530s / 520s, in which temple authorities are responsible for establis- 
hing and maintaining things called pardesu} 05 One is a vineyard (CT 22.198i); 
and in another case (YOS 3.133) the pardesu-work stands alongside the imme- 
morially established activities of planting date-palms and making bricks. The 
work is certainly called "work of the palace". This no doubt accounts for the 
intrusion of the Iranian term; but by the same token we are not compelled to 
assume that the object is something specially extravagant - a modest fruit garden 
not dominated by date-palms and perhaps not laid out in standard Mesopotamian 
fashion would suffice. 

A category error similar to that involving Araq el Emir is arguably committed 
by those (e.g. Birge 1982: 131, 215f) who suggest that Xenophon's creation of a 
sanctuary and estate at Scillus amounts to the importation of the paradeisos into 
mainland Greece. To begin with the Scillus khorion was traversed by a fish- 
stocked river and had in it "opportunities to hunt all sorts of huntable animals" 
{third ponton hoposa estin agreuomena theria). Xenophon constructed an altar 
and temple, turning it into a "sacred area" (hieros khoros) whose boundaries 
included an alsos of fruit trees of all types and meadows and tree-covered hills 
suitable for breeding horses, cattle, goats and pigs. It is not clear if these animals 
are the same as the hiera nome (sacred herd) which provided sacrificial victims, 
but there was also a vineyard and cereal-land whose produce was consumed inter 
alios by festival visitors. It may be true that this combination of working estate 

(= RC 3.98), 364.10, 768.19; OGIS 765.13 (where the epaulia are perhaps more distant 
from town than the oikiai); Alciphr.4.13 (= fr.6).l,3; LucAj«i.17 (here the epaulis has an 
wl'el (v) Epaulis / epaulion as more modest structures: Diod.2.4; 5.39. (vi) Epaulis as 
feature of garden: Dio Prus.7. 145 (poluteleis, but of uncertain scale), (vii) Aulites is used by 
Ap.Rh.4.1487 of a farm-worker (shepherd). 
1U 5 CT 22.1981 (Sippar: early Cyrus); YOS 3.133 (Uruk, 539/526 BCE); Cyr.212 (Sippar: 534 
BCE). There is also an unhelpful reference to an upper pardesu in a loan document from 
464 BCE (CBS 13039). 

I I* 


. Ctt 


Chapter 2. The Parks and Gardens of the Achaemenid Empire 

and religious sanctuary is not a commonplace and, leaving the sanctuary aside, 
the description certainly evokes Dascyleium. 106 But if the paradeisos has any 
relevance it should be confined specifically to two features, (a) The so-called 
alsos of fruit-trees may have been something which a Persian would have called a 
paradeisos. (The choice of the word alsos would be influenced by the sacred 
setting - not to mention a desire not to make the place seem unduly foreign.) (b) 
The hunting land lying within the "sacred area" could be assimilated to a hunting- 
paradeisos - but only on the additional assumption that the land in question was 
separately enclosed, an assumption for which Xenophon's description provides 
no support. On the contrary one has the impression that the delineation of a sacred 
boundary (perhaps only by horoi) had not practically interfered with the essenti- 
ally natural hunting area spreading up into Mt Pholoe which had existed before 
Xenophon entered the scene. 107 

What encourages over-extensive interpretation of paradeisos is the conjun- 
ction of passages which associate paradeisoi with high status residences and one 
or two texts which speak of people living in paradeisoi - a dilemma resolved by 
saying that the residences are part of the paradeisoi rather than that the paradei- 
soi are features of the residence. This is arbitrary and (in view of what has already 
been said) wrong. Paradeisoi are resources in principle separate from mere 
residences which are available for various purposes, including materially practi- 
cal ones. Many Greeks texts, especially documentary references, cast no explicit 
light on this, because it is simply taken for granted. But the Sardian parade isoi of 
the Mnesimachus document are simply one type of agricultural resource, and the 
same is true in Aelian Varia Historia 1.33: offered a particularly large pear, 
Artaxerxes asked "from which paradeisos did this come?" Paradeisoi are for 
supplying fruit. They can also supply timber; this is exceptional in Strabo 16.1.11 
(741) (boat-timber) and Plutarch Artoxerxes 25 (firewood); but Nehemiah's 
request for building wood from the king's pardes is straightforward (2.8); and PF 
1815 (the wood-handlers of Parsaras) fits neatly in here as well. On a slightly 
different tack, Harpalus introduced box and other foreign trees to Babylonian 
paradeisoi (Theophrastus HP 4.4.1 = Plutarch Moralia 648C) and Megasthenes 
claimed (wrongly) that certain species were all but unknown east of the Euphrates 
save in parade isoi (Strabo 15.1.68). One may compare Dionysius' introduction 
of the plane into the paradeisos at Rhegion (Theophrastus HP 4.5.6, Pliny NH 
12.7), the rare cultivation of balsamon in Palestine (Theophrastus HP 9.6.1,4) 
and Theophrastus' observation (HP 5.8.1) that cedars in Syrian paradeisoi are 
even finer than those found in natural settings. These passages, however, do not 
establish that Kew-garden style species collection was a prime function of all 
paradeisoi Persian appreciation of fine trees (cf. pp.1 18,121), the serving at the 
King' s Dinner of products from all far-flung corners of the empire, Neo- Assyrian 
boasts about the importation of species into royal gardens (above p.86) - all these 

B. Achaemenid Material 


106 Even the combination of agriculture and huntable animals is iconographically 
Greece (cf. Osborne 1987: 19,fig.4). 

107 Osbome 1992: 390 thinks alsos or leimon the appropriate terminology for Scillus. 

rare in 

may tempt the assumption that some paradeisoi were repositories of botanical 
exotica, but they are not proof and in any case establish nothing about the 
generality of paradeisoi. It is perhaps significant in this context that none of the 
so-called Tribute Bearers of the Persepolis friezes appears to bring botanical 
offerings. (One may contrast neo- Assyrian evidence in this respect. 108 ) 

Botanical matters aside, paradeisoi can also be pleasant environments in 
which to do business (Ephippus 126F4) or bury the dead (Aristobulus 139 F 51; 
Josephus AJ 10.46; II Chronicles 33.20), but also to seek recreation (Diodorus 
16.41.5) - a place for reflection (Longus 4.30; Chariton 4.2.8), exercise of 
various sorts, 109 conversation (Achilles Tatius 1.16f; Heliodorus 7.23), peaceful 
convalescence ( Arrian Anabasis 7.25), bathing (ibid.; Daniel 13.4,7; Philostratus 
Apollonius 2.27), dining (Josephus AJ 7.347). 110 These essentially pleasurable 
aspects tend to predominate, and dictate the associations which the word tends to 
evoke, i.e. luxury, 111 decoration, 112 enjoyment. 113 Two pleasures deserve further 
comment, (a) Sexual activity is associated with pardesim or paradeisoi in Song of 
Songs 4.12f, Achilles Tatius 1.1 5ff (the paradeisos is exploited as a rhetorical 
gambit to incite thoughts of love) and Aristaenetus' erotikos paradeisos ( 1 .3), but 
although one part of the historical tradition about the Achaemenids made some 
play with sexual licence paradeisoi do not figure in that context (cf. also n.l 10). 
(b) Neo-Assyrian art offers the striking (and iconographically fertile) image of 
Assurbanipal and his queen drinking under a vine-bower in the middle of a 

108 ARAB 1.794 (LAL- and LU-a-nu plants), 2.74 ("all kinds of shrubs [evergreens]"). 235 and 
265 (mulberry trees). 

109 Photius /ex.383.2: paradeisos as peripatos with trees and water; Longus 4.16; the dromoi 
mdperipatoi basilikoi the Syrian Chersonese in Plut.D/r.50 may represent paradeisoi of 
this sort, to complement the explicitly mentioned hunting ones; a dromos also appears in 
SIG 3 463 (Itanos). Cyrus* gardening activities (Xen.Oec.4.20) and hunting (Anab. 1.2.7) 
also belong here. 

HO It is not clear that the Lydian sexual activity described in Clearchus 43-4 Wehrli actually 
occurs in one of the paradeisoi. 

HI Longus 4.2 (for truphe and pleasure); Procop.4.6 (possessed by a habrotaton genos); 
Clearchus 43/4 and AristophMst.anim.epit. 2.130 (the luxury of shade); Diod.2.13.3 (Se- 
miramis indulging in luxuries at Chauon). In £cc/.2.5 and Palladius Vit.Joan.ChrysM 
creating paradeisoi is an act of vanity. 

112 Arist.Enc.fom.225.30 (the whole world is decorated [enkekosmetai] like a paradeisos)', 
Plut.Arrox.25 {paradeisoi thaumastoi kai kekosmemenoi)\ Joseph.^/ 6.62 (ta gar palai 
dendresi kai paradeisois kekosmemena). 

U3 Arist.E*c.rtom.225.30 (the context evokes peace, beauty, jewellery, festivals, gifts, foun- 
tains, fine buildings etc. as other pleasurable features of subjection to imperial Rome); trees 
in the Hanging Garden (cf. n.89) were of sort to give pleasure to beholder; Tissaphernes' 
Sardian paradeisos affords peaceful enjoyment (Diod.14.80) and Cyrus* is full of nice 
smells (Xen.Oec. 4.20); in GeoponAOA the purpose of a paradeisos (as of a kepos:\22) is 
Pleasure of sight and smell, while for Clement (7.18.1 1 1) orderly planting of trees provides 
hedone opseos and Achilles Tatius' paradeisos is for hedone ophthalmon (1.15.1); the 
Susian paradeisos meteoros represents an apogee of non-spiritual eudaimonia (Dio 79.6); 
Pharnabazus took delight in an inheritance which included houses and both sorts of 
Paradeisos (Xen.fl ell A. 1. 33); the Ecbatana emplacement is a deversorium. 


t k ■ 



: if*" 


:■ CD 



Chapter 2. The Parks and Gardens of the Achaemenid Empire 

garden. 114 This may be something of a ritual event rather than an ordinary 
"social" occasion (Deller 1987; above 87), but in any event it is hard to document 
a parallel in Achaemenid contexts. 115 Sources on the King's Dinner do not 
suggest paradeisos locations. 116 Ephippus 126F4 mentions couches for reclining 
in a Babylonian paradeisos*, and Alexander feeds his entire army in the Sogdian 
hunting park (p. 101). But the latter is certainly a special case. The out-of-doors 
meal which figures in Herodotus' logos about the origins of the Persian revolt 
against Astyages of Media (1.126) takes place in a freshly cleared piece of 
agricultural land, not a paradeisos - though a paradeisos would arguably be out 
of place anyway in primitive pre-imperial Persis. 117 

The ritual overtones of the Assurbanipal image and the fact that other ancient 
near eastern cultures provide evidence of temple gardens and groves 118 remind 
one that paradeisos sources by contrast evoke few significant religious con- 
nections. The magi who tended the tomb of Cyrus doubtless carried out religious 
rituals in the Pasargadae paradeisos - indeed Arrian {Anabasis 6.29) speaks of a 
monthly horse-sacrifice - and (cf. p.95 above) the /aw-ceremony happened in the 
Pasargadae partetas (I hesitate to regard this as more than coincidence and locate 
the partetas at the tomb.) It is also no doubt possible that the myrtle rods used by 
magi for mantic purposes (Dinon 690 F 3), the myrtle and triphyllon involved in 
Magian animal sacrifice (Herodotus 1.131), the twigs which appear under the 
heads of an ox and a bull on a stele from Dascyleium, the consituents of the 
barsom-bundle illustrated there and elsewhere and even the mysterious haoma 
came from paradeisoi. (Nor should we forget the 46 chaplet-makers of the 
household of Darius III in Athenaeus 607D.) But apart from the /arc-ceremony, 
explicit sources are lacking, and although the altars preserved at Pasargadae stand 

114 See n.163. -A banquet in a flower-decorated location occurs already on a notable Megiddo 
ivory (Dentzer 1982: fig.33, Barnett 191(53), xvi-xvii, ANEP 332). Ptolemy Philadelphia 
banqueting tent was made in the image of a flowery meadow (Callixeinus ap.Athen.196D). 

115 Joseph A/ 7.347 refers to the time of Solomon. 

116 Esther 1.5, 7.7-8 is only a rather partial exception, if an exception at all. On the whole it 
sounds more like Heraclid.689 F 2, who speaks of both internal and external dinner locales 
as aulai. Ptolemy's festal tent with "divine meadow" (Athen.l97D) is only vaguely rele- 

117 Motte 1971: 69 nonetheless regards the leimon as part of a paradeisos. 

118 cf. Elamite texts and the Choga Zanbil site (Kawami 1992:84), Hammurabi (VA 3359: 24) 
and Kassite references (Gurney 1949: no.l), Sennacherib's bit akitu sa sen at Assur 
(Andrae 1907: 17f, 30f, fig.7-12; Pallis 1926: 1 14f; Fauth 1979: 18; ARAB 2.437; cf. SAA 
iii 32 r.24), Sargon's gifts to Bel of pleasant-smelling plants from Mt Amanus (ARAB 2.70 
= 184), involvement of garden in a Nabu akitu ritual (Postgate 1974b: 57f), various 
Egyptian items (Hugonot 1992: 33f), e.g. Ramses' gift of 514 gardens to temples, the 
garden terraces at Deir el Bahari which received the incense-trees transplanted from Punt, 
and the so-called Botanic Garden (Porter & Moss II 120f; Barguet 1962: 198f,286; Beaux 
1990; Baum 1992), a subsidiary chamber in a section of Thutmosis Ill's Amon-temple at 
Karnak connected with ideas of rebirth, decorated with pictures of plants and animals 
(mostly birds). Accompanying texts refer to plants found in Retenou by Thuthmosis and to 
various strange plants, produce of cultivated land, which he brought back from the land lot 
the god (the east) "in order to make them equal before Amon in the great hall of Akn- 

B. Achaemenid Material 


within an enclosure there is no evidence for its being a paradeisos enclosure. 119 
Greeks readily perceived a numinous presence ("nymphs") in places of natural 
verdant beauty, quite often associated gardens and divinities, and created temple 
or sanctuary gardens and groves. 120 It is typical that Plato's instructions to the 
Rural Wardens of Magnesia about natural water sources {Laws 76 IF) involve not 
just beautification of rivers and fountains but their manipulation to serve the 
needs of nearby groves and enclosures. 121 But, although such groves might seem 
superficially to share some characteristics with the paradeisos (at least in its non- 
utilitarian guise), 122 Greek sources deploy no such ideas in the present connecti- 
on. This might no doubt be ignorance (Achaemenid religion is a singularly 
opaque topic), but the body of evidence is large enough to allow the argument 
from silence some force and it seems fair to infer at least that the Greek tradition 
did not receive the sort of impression of paradeisoi as "special" places which 
might have prompted intimations of the divine. For Greek observers - and 

119 Nolle 1991: pls,14a (= Jdl 93 (1978) 121 fig.26), 15c (= Borchhardt 1968: pl.57). The 
barsom-bundle was originally made of grass stalks but was apparently more substantial in 
the Achaemenid era (Boyce 1982: 39). - The sacred tree as such is not a significant element 
of Achaemenid iconography. For all the similarities of Assyrian and Achaemenid iconogra- 
phy, the latter contains no central image corresponding to the Assyrian sacred tree (cf. 
Saggs 1984: 235, pl.l5A, Parpola 1993, Porter 1993). What special aura may nonetheless 
have attached to individual trees is hard to say. Palm trees do appear on a number of seals in 
conjunction with stereotypical "royal" figures as well as on the Darius hunting seal. The 
palm tree encapsulates useful fertility because of high productivity (Porter 1993: 136) and 
multifarious uses (Strab.16.1.14 reports a Persian poem on the 360 functions of the palm 
tree); and Xerxes' decoration of a plane tree nearCallatebus (Hdt.7.31) has been compared 
with rituals marking the start of summer (West 1970: 73). - Birge 1982: 132 affirms the 
"sacred" character of paradeisoi but without cogent evidence. Grimal says Cyrus' paradei- 
sos was Sijardin sacre planted by a roi laboureur (1943: 82). Roi laboureur is perhaps 
defensible (see below n.125), but sacre is misleading. 

120 Nymphs: e.g. 0<£17.2O5, AT.Nub.27l, E.E/.714,1133, Demetr.^e e/oc.132, AP 9.329, Al- 
ciphr.4.13, IG i 3 784, Connor 1988, Rackam 1990: 111. Gods: Pi.O.3.13, P.9.55, 
Plat.5ymp.203B, Diod.5.43 (Zeus); ML 12, (Apollo); Paus.5.19.6 (Diony- 
sus); Paus.1.19.2, 27.3, 10.8.8, PLP.5.24, Strab.14.6.3, Luc.imagAA pro imag.%,\%> 
diaimer.lA (Aphrodite); Aristid./i/er./c?£.332 (Asclepius); Pi. 0.9.27 (Graces); Ar.Nub.21l 
(Oceanus);Plat.P/i<i/\276B (Adonis - a special case). Temples etc.Thompson 1937 (Hephae- 
stion), Jameson 1982 (Rhamnus), Bruneau 1979 (Delos); SIG 3 1005 (Asclepius), IG vii 43 
(Poseidon), IG ix 2.147 (Artemis), SIG 1106, 1217, SEG 26,1029, IG xii suppl.353 
(Heracles), Polyb.16.1.6, 18.6.4 (Aphrodite). Birge 1982: 54 denies that the Greek sacred 
grove derives from orient. Julian sacrificing in palace garden: Liban. orat.\A2\f> 12.81, 

121 Plato does also mention gymnasia and hot baths for the elderly as other water uses; but the 
former are also (if somewhat mutedly) sacred sites and the latter certainly do not resemble 

122 For example, they are walled or demarcated (n.48), people can be said to live in them 
(Od.9.197, Dio Chrys.8.4), they are primarily associated with trees, though fruit trees are 
probably less common than in paradeisoi and orderly arrangement is not a normal feature. 
For a distinction between alse and paradeisoi cf. schol.Acsch.5ep/.272 (glossing theois 
pedionomois): citizens set aside alsea kai paradeisous kaipedia liparogea from their land 
and dedicate them to the gods. 









Chapter 2. The Parks and Gardens of the Achaemenid Empire 

perhaps for the Persians themselves - the paradeisos remains at best a matter of 
secular pleasure and at worst one of secular utility. 123 

The one possible serious qualification to this concerns not religious values 
but royal ideology. Xenophon believed that the Persian King devoted special care 
to promoting agricultural productivity. Other sources indicate more fleetingly 
something of the same interest and show (in conformity with the implications of 
the Fortification archive) that the revenue concerns of the Achaemenid system 
were far from confined to coin and bullion (Tuplin 1987a: 1 37f). That this passed 
from practicality to ideology and lent itself to symbolic representation is sugge- 
sted by the golden plane-tree and vine made by Theodorus of Samos and given to 
Darius by Pythius 124 and by Xerxes' reaction on finding a fine plane tree a day 
east of Sardis (Herodotus 7.30): he decorated it with gold and appointed a 
perpetual guardian - actions a Greek might even have construed as religious. In 
these circumstances the possible symbolic fucntion of paradeisoi has inevitably 
been raised. Xenophon actually mentions paradeisoi in the context of Persian 
royal agriculturalism, and insofar as Persian agricultural innovation involved 
fruit trees paradeisoi were a natural locus. Moreover there is clear evidence of a 
long-established Assyro-Babylonian tradition not just of kings taking credit for 
fertility (something for which a Greek analogue of a sort occurs in Odyssey 
19.105) but specifically of the royal gardener. 125 In a sense this case is unanswer- 
able: in an ancient near eastern world in which productivity is unreliable and 
failure potentially disastrous and in which the contrast between cultivated and 
uncultivated land was particularly sharp, any established patch of successful 
cultivation must have been more than averagely in danger of evaluation in other 
than purely practical terms. But two qualifications should perhaps be entered, (l) 
The postulated symbolic interpretation is not directly attested in any sources. 
(There is no particular reason to put a gloss of this sort on e.g. the younger Cyrus 
destruction of Belesys' paradeisos in north Syria. 126 ) Moreover, Xenophon him- 
self, faced with the task of imagining the beginning of the regime in Cyropaedia, 
ascribed to the elder Cyrus an instruction for the universal satrapal establishment 

123 Egyptian paradeisoi occasionally have religious connections: cf. P.Tebt. 60.38, ola.l 
(hiera ge\ 86.18 (owned by synagogue), 86.52 (Dios paradeisos), 343.69 (paradeisos 
hieratike), BGU 1896 (p.hieratike). 

124 Hdt.7.27; PlinJVff 33.137; Xen.ffeH.7.1.38; Char.125 F 2 = Athen.514F, 539D. 

125 See Fauth 1979. Among relevant texts are ARAB 1.252, 739, 753, 2.68, 92, 1 19f, 127, 130, 
236, 332, 400f, 436, 487, 656, 659E, 728, 935; LAS 137, 138, 167; VAB 4.105 (no. 13,19). 
Marduk-apla-Iddina's list of 67 varieties of fruits, gourds, condiments and vegetables from 
his gardens (BM 46226, CT xiv 50, Meissner 1891: 289f, Brinkmann 1964: 52) and 
Nabonidus* collection of fruit-trees (ANET 305b) are also presumably connected, as is 
Egyptian material in n. 98. For gardeners becoming kings cf. the stories of Enlilbani (AB 
155), Sargon of Akkad, Beletaras (Agathias 2.25), Abdalonymus (Diod. 17.47, Plut3 
D,Curt.4.3.4, Just.11.10.8). The Sesostris story in Diod.1.59.3 (cf. Hdt.2.1 11) is related, as 
is that of Gordius (ArrAnab.2.32, Just.l 1.7.50, especially since Gordium is said to mea 
"garden, fenced place". 

126 Stolper 1990: 202f, 205 speculates with proper uncertainty about Cyrus* action being 
provoked by distaste for the policy of using non-Iranians as high-level satraps. 

{ * 

! : l|i 

B. Achaemenid Material 


of hunting paradeisoi, not botanical ones. I have suggested elsewhere that the 
general avoidance of reference to Persian royal and aristocratic interest in gar- 
dens in Cyropaedia is influenced by Greek prejudice (Tuplin 1990: 23); but, 
though it is unsurprising that we do not see the novel's Cyrus engaging personally 
in horticulture in the manner of his real late fifth century namesake, complete 
suppression of the botanical paradeisos was hardly essential - if Xenophon had 
thought it important enough. One should not forget that hunting is a more 
significant Achaemenid iconographic theme than anything horticultural (though 
even so there is no clear evidence for it as such an artificially ritualised activity as 
that shown in some Assyrian contexts (83f and n. 14) and it is not selected, indeed 
is deselected, as part of the official language of imperial self-representation: 
Garrison 1991: 17f) and that the Great King's written ideological statements 
contain nothing specifically pertinent, even if the concept of bumi (earth / 
empire) does connote fertility as well as extent (Herrenschmidt 1976). (ii) We are 
in danger of overvaluing the paradeisos as distinguished from other categories of 
productive land just because it has a special, Iranian name. It begs the question to 
assume that this fact - or rather the impact of this fact even on Greek usage - 
demonstrates the object's uniquely special status; and one should not forget that 
on the available evidence the paradeisos does not appear to be characteristically 
merely symbolically productive. 

But, it may be objected, are not the utilitarian and the pleasurably luxurious 
strangely constrasting associations for one and the same thing? Moreover, has the 
argument so far not been playing a trick on the reader by deliberately confusing 
two types of paradeisos, not the botanic and the hunting, but the early and the 
late? And may these two complaints not be connected? For a conventional view 
would have us distinguish the Achaemenid paradeisos from a much humbler 
successor. As we have seen paradeisos is a commonly used designation in 
Hellenistic and Roman documentary sources from Egypt for orchard or garden 
land of various sorts. 127 So too in post-testamentary Hebrew gannot u-pardesim 
means gardens and orchards - and pardes is the modern Hebrew word for an 
orchard. It is this, it might be said, which accounts e.g. for the predominance of 
trees in a simple listing of undifferentiated Greek or Semitic source material and 
makes it easy to create an impression of modest utilitarianism which mis-states 
the truth about Achaemenid culture. The claim is specious but false, and anyone 
who works through the source material in detail will see this: to put it simply, the 
c 30 per cent of Greek literary evidence which is Achaemenid-related (and, of 
course, all the documentary partetas material from Persepolis) offers essentially 
the same range of characteristics for paradeisoi as the sample (Egyptian material 
included) as a whole. One may add that the dichotomy of utilitarian and pleasu- 
rable is not always straightforward: even those of high status require supplies of 

127 PC Z 59157 illustrates the mixture of utility and pleasure which attaches xo paradeisoi: Zeno 
» to plant pine trees through the whole paradeisos to produce an "impressive spectacle - 
and (financial) advantage for the King. Still more utilitarian is PCZ 59825.14, where a 
consignment of 10,000 bricks is to be received "from the paradeisos 1 '. 

■■ l : * 
:■ i : i 

: I* 

a El 




! CD 



Chapter 2. The Parks and Gardens of the Achaemenid Empire 



"ordinary" products. 128 But there is an issue here which should be addressed a 
little further. 

The issue is essentially to do with the nature of the adoption of paradeisos 
into Greek (or Hebrew). For the pattern is, at first sight, odd. 129 

1. The loan word pardesu is attested in Akkadian within five years of Cyrus* 
conquest of Babylon, but never appears very commonly in Babylonian docu- 
ments. 130 It is not attested in Greek until the writings of Xenophon - unless the 
"comedians" whom Photius (lexicon 383.2) mentions are poets of Old Comedy - 
and Xenophon is the only properly preserved pre-Hellenistic author in whom the 
word appears. Of course, it clearly also appeared in Ctesias and will probably 
have figured in Ephorus and other fourth century sources of those snippets of 
information preserved in later texts which link paradeisoi and events / personali- 
ties of the Achaemenid era. But such snippets are surprisingly rare. 

2. When Xenophon speaks of paradeisoi in Oeconomicus 4.13 he effectively 
glosses the word: wherever the king goes "there are gardens (kepoi\ the so-called 
paradeisoi..:' In Anabasis and Cyropaedia there are no such glosses, but all the 
passages explain the word anyway because they indicate what the paradeisoi 
contain or are for. So we do not necessarily have to infer that he assumed 
familiarity with the word / phenomenon on the part of readers. Clearchus' 
statement (43 Wehrli) - if correctly quoted - that Lydians created paradeisoi 
"and made them garden-like" may imply a similar caution. 

3. Pre-Xenophontic Greek authors not only do not use the word paradeisos. 
They also offer nothing which looks like a terminologically unspecific descripti- 
on of a paradeisos. One rather tantalizing example of this is Herodotus 9.1 16, the 
account of the sacrilege of Artayctes, who occupied the temenos of Protesilaus 
(claiming at the confiscated oikos of an invader of the King's realm), sowed and 
drew revenue from it and used the adyton as place to consort with women. This 
episode is referred to both at the start and the end of the narrative of Xerxes* 
invasion (7.33, 9.116) and Artayctes' eventual fate is the final item of the whole 
Histories save for the symbolically important conversation of his grandfather 
with Cyrus in which the latter resists abandonment of Persia for a more luxurious, 
but morally debilitating landscape. Artayctes' story is certainly a paradigmatic 
episode (cf. Nagy 1987, Boedekker 1988) and - not least in view of the way 
sources of Roman date present the Protesilaum as a place of unusual arboricultu- 

128 cf. Eyre 1994: 68: "characteristically Old Kingdom tomb scenes place gardens in the 
economic context of the productive cycles, while New Kingdom scenes stress the pleasant 
environment. By contrast royal and official inscriptions focus on digging the lake and 
planting the orchard as temple endowment. Yet the underlying material context remains the 
same: not merely the pleasure garden, nor the mortuary estate, nor temple surrounds, but 
luxury production. The official supplied his extended household. The temple had extensive 
needs for the offering table and for its staff. These needs were satisfied by local plantations, 
fed by perennial water, often from a private water source**. 

129 Pollux 9.13 unhelpfully says paradeisos is a barbarian noun which (like other Persian 
words) hekeL.kata sunetheian eis khresin Helleniken. 

130 See n. 105. 1 do not know what to make of mat Pardesu in texts of Seleucid date in Pinches 
1896: 250f. 

B. Achaemenid Material 


ral character 131 - it is very tempting to feel that what Artayctes was actually doing 
was emblematically turning a Hellenic temenos into a Persian paradeisos. But 
this is not what Herodotus says. Perhaps this is all fantasy. But, whether or not 
Herodotus should have seen a paradeisos in the events at Elaious, he certainly did 
not perceive one anywhere else. 132 Yet he was aware of Persian delight in fine 
trees (7.30), could ascribe to Mardonius the argument that Xerxes should conquer 
Europe because the land (and its tree production) were too fine for anyone but the 
Great King to possess them (7.5) and was exposed to tales which enshrined 
something of the ideological overtones assigned to agricultural and horticultural 
activity in the ancient near east 133 He was also an Anatolian Greek, and Anatolia 
was a place to see paradeisoi. How did he fail to notice them and say something 
about them, if they were a seriously distinctive feature of the landscape? 

But perhaps they were not. It does not seem very likely that this is simply a 
chronological issue, i.e. that notable paradeisoi - ones that e.g. made the Hermus 
plain look fundamentally different - were not established in the west until the 
later fifth century. 134 More likely it is a matter of perception. Perhaps it took an 
observer with quasi-professional interest in hunting to notice the un-hellenic 
hwning'paradeisos and an observer with concentrated direct exposure to the 
Persian milieu to realize that there was something sufficiently unusual about 
Persian gardens to justify the adoption of an Iranian term. And the second 
observation may have been a by-product of the first; because Persians employed 
the same word for two rather disparate phenomena, one of which interested 
Xenophon a good deal, he noticed the other phenomenon. 

4. Standard literary Greek evidently had no need of the word paradeisos to 
describe anything which was, or became, proper to Greek culture but for which 
there was inadequate native lexical provision. The great majority of literary 
sources either connect paradeisoi with the Achaemenids or locate them in the 
east even when they are not connected with the Achaemenids (and may even be 
envisaged as pre-Achaemenid 135 ). We have noted a few arguably less-than- 
complete exceptions above (pp.109), and may add that a number of other texts 
appear to use the word because (appropriately to something with essentially 
oriental connections) it sounder grander or more sumptuous than "garden". 136 

131 PlinJVtf 16.88, Philoslr. he roid.9. 2-3 (140-1), Quint.Smyrn. 7.408f. It may be relevant to 
the Protesilaum' s horticultural associations that in the Catalogue (//.2.693f) he is associated 
with flowery Pyrasus and grassy Pteleum. 

132 The Sardis alsea burned in 498 (Hdt.7.86.3) are, of course, sacred groves. For other 
gardens, groves etc. in Herodotus see 2.138 (Bubastis), 156 (Chemmis), 3.18 (Ethiopian 
city suburb), 4,109 (Geloni), 158 (Aziris), 181 (Ammon), 5.1 18 (Labraunda), 6.79 (Argos), 
8.138 (Midas-garden). 

13 3Hdt.l.l26;cf.n.l25. 

134 The w ord is, after all, already borrowed into Akkadian in the 530s, suggesting that the 

Phenomenon spread there immediately after the Achaemenid conquest. Why should this not 

be true of western Anatolia? - It is worth noting explicitly that the paradeisos plays no role 

m creating an oriental setting in Aeschylus Persae. 
^Clearchus 43 Wehrli (Lydia); Ctes.688Fl =Diod.2.13.1,3 (Media); JosephA/ 7.347, 9.223, 

10.46 (Palestine). 
136 Luc *W2.23; Liban^.12.30.14; Aristid.225; Genesis 3.8-10. But the tendency is not 

* it 

; 4ii$ 
! "» 


: ti> 


Chapter 2. The Parks and Gardens of the Achaemenid Empire 

B. Achaemenid Material 


Even so, when Theopompus (115 F 31 = Athenaeus 531E-532A) describes 
the luxury-loving Thracian King Cotys' summer resort at Onocharsis - one of a 
number of places (hestiatoria) with trees, running water, and buildings which he 
visited in turn to make sacrifices and consort with his huparchoi - he does not 
think of using the term paradeisos and contents himself with alsos. Herodotus 
(2.133) was satisfied with the same term in connection with the pleasure spots of 
King Mycerinus, places (as described) entirely innocent of religious associati- 
ons. 137 The suggestion of Miller 1985: 93 that Cimon's adornment of the Aca- 
demy - making it a well-watered alsos with race tracks and shady peripatoi 
(Plutarch Cimon 13) 138 - was influenced by paradeisoi is at first sight mildly 
seductive, but the gymnastic element has nothing to do with Persian gardens, and 
it may beg the question to assume that the alsos ami peripatoi were somehow un- 
Greek. Since the alsos is certainly not in itself a novel concept (though no doubt 
one which could comprehend a variety of external appearances), the best line 
would be to concentrate on the walkways, remember the anonymous comedians* 
association of peripatoi and paradeisoi, acknowledge that no fifth century or 
earlier Greek text clearly speaks of a garden as a place to walk in, and conclude 
that provision of proper paths within a garden or park was something new to 
Cimon's contemporaries. But it is hard to be sure. Ancient texts virtually never 
refer to walkways within groves at any date, 139 but they rarely say much about the 
internal dispositions of groves anyway, and Cimon's arrangements could have 
been no more than a development, on an unusual scale and in a "prime" site, of an 

commonplace (cf.nn.150, 151). The royal gardens of Ethiopia are for Strabo kepoi (17.2.2); 
and the water-diviner who wishes to practice his art on important commissions is interested 
in cities, army-camps and royal kepoi (Plut.776DE). 

137 Compare Gelon's alsos with the Horn of Amaltheia: Duris 76 F 19 = Athen.542A. (Other 
relevant Sicilian royal gardens appear in Silen. 175F4 = Athen.542A [richly appointed 
kepos near Syracuse called "Muthos", where Hieron transacted business] and Athen.207D, 
542A [the garden created by Hiero on board ship].) Alsos is not commonly used of non- 
sacred landscapes in surviving classical authors (cf. Eur ./A 141-2,, but the 
willingness of Aristotle and Theophrastus to deploy it as a neutral technical term (Birge 
1985: 132f) makes one wonder if what survives is misleading. It is not clear that Cotys 
Onocharsis is the scene of the planned hierogamy with Athena described in the same 
passage which Theopompus sees as blasphemous but Fol & Marazov 1977: 5 If regard as a 
standard feature of Thracian kingship. 

138 Other sources also categorise the Academy as a grove (Plut.Su//. 12) or alsodes gumnasion 
(Diog.Laert.3.7, Suda s.v. t Apostol.2.1). No doubt the city's beautiful groves in 
com.adespot.340K = 155KA included it. Eupol.32K = 36KA refers to euskioi dromou 
presumably the pathways, not what Plutarch means by dromoi (the running tracks). 

139 There are some late references to groves with pathways: Strab.5.3.8 (by the Mausoleum of 
Augustus), Paus.7.21.11 (Patras seashore), Vitruv.5.11.4 {palaistra design). The riverside 
walks amidst myrtles at Heraea (Paus.7.26. 1) were not necessarily in groves. Melanipp. 757 
imagines groves capable of having chariots driven through (cf. H.HApol.229f [Onche- 
stos]); this and other sporadic indications of open space inside groves (Liv.24.3.3, Paus.2.1 1 A 
9.24.5, 39.9) are consistent with paths. Philostr. imag. 1.6.1 describes an apple-garden with 
paths (dromoi) lined with grass, and Liban.oraf. 1 1 .266 speaks of the pleasure of walking in 
a garden. 

ordinary, if not commonplace, feature of traditional Greek groves - or of such as 
were "open access". 140 Another possibility is that the peripatos was intrinsic to 
the gymnasium. 141 In any case we have to wait until Lucian's Vera Historia 
(2.23) to find the word paradeisos deployed in this connection, and no other 
source uses it of either the Academy or any other Athenian or non-Athenian 
gymnasium complex. 

More generally, it is not hard to find passages in late or post-classical sources 
referring to eastern or non-Greek settings which conjure up opulent (and artifici- 
al) landscapes but do not use the word paradeisos. Julian's description of the 
palace and estate at Batnae with its groves and prasiai (ep.27.5-6) is a notable 
case, but there are others. 142 The same is true of Greek locations. 143 Even famous 
literary evocations do not get redefined as paradeisoi For example, Thesleff 
1981 thought that the paradeisos lay behind Alcinous' garden in Odyssey vii and 
Birge 1982: 102, 152 suggests that in a later author the garden would have been 
called a paradeisos. But, despite post-Homeric perceptions of the Phaeacians as 
luxurious, I know of no text that so designates it, 144 and occasional modern 

140 Open access groves are specifically attested as early as Aesch.Swpp/.508f. - The grove's 
function as shady rest-place for travellers (Plat.L^.625C, AclVH 3.1, Anth.PaL9. 669, 
10.13; cf. OdAl. 205) may be tangentially relevant here. 

141 They come together in later texts: Athen.207A, Plut.PyrrA.16. 

142 Liban.onaf.18.243 describes a Mesopotamian palace with kepoi, horai, osmai antheon and a 
herd of wild pig in a khorion opposite for hunting practice. The same place appears in 
Amm.Marc.24.5. If, Zosim. 3.23.2 (see Fontaine's note in the Bude" of Amm.Marc. ad loc.) 
but in none of these texts is the word paradeisos used. Nor is it in Jos.£/5.176f on Herod's 
Jericho palace, which contained open green areas, poikilai hulaU broad peripatoi, water 
channels (euripoi) and basins, and dove cots. Note also: Liban. orat. 11.200 (gardens, 
springs, plantings, flowers); Liban. orat.4A2, 1 1.234-6, Strab.16.2.6 (descriptions of Daphne 
and its approaches, involving groves, gardens, katagogai, springs etc.); Damasc. 
Wf./sufor.ap.Phot. cod.242.199 (347b) (15 stade long cravasse in the desert with gardens 
and georgiai at the bottom and a supposed spring of the Styx); Strab.3.2.3, 17.1.9 (grove); 
Arr.Anab.5.2.5 (grove, hunting: cf. Diod.3.68.5f); Diod.3.44.8, 20.8.3; Arr.lnd. 27.2; Apo- 
llod. 779F1 (gardens); Liban.oraf.22.31 (a stoa-enclosed garden of vines, figs, other trees 
and herbs); Plat. Crit.X 17Bf (groves, gardens); Athen.l96E (leimon); Diod.5.43.1f (gar- 
dens, leimones); Diod.3.42-43; Strab.16.4.8 (phoinikon); Diod.17.50; Arr^«^.3.4.1f (trees 
of all sorts). 

143 Silen.l75F4 = Athen.542A; Athen.207D, 542A; Long.2.3;^.l2.9.1f (gar- 
dens); Plut.l48Bf (gardens, groves); Dio 7.145 (the wealthy man's version of natural 
beauty is kepon te kai proastion poluteleis epauleis, numphones kateskeuasmenoi, thauma- 
sta alsea); Paus.7.21.11; Anth.Pal.9.668 (groves); Alciphr.4.13 = fr.6 (leimon, garden); 
Luc.Amor.12 (trees: "a pleasure garden", Birge 1982: 38). 

144 Himer.35.62;Themist.237C; Dio 2.40; Liban.oraU 1 .236, 13.18, 18.225; epistA2S1.2; ps-^.12.9.1. On Phaeacian trupheci. Athen.9A, 192D, 513A. The nearest one gets to 
a connection is that Alcinous' installation includes an aloe, while Hesych. s.v. aloai reads: 
aloai: paradeisoi. - Other notable mythical gardens/groves which escape the designation 
paradeisos are those associated with the Hesperides (Hes.77^.215, 333f, 518; Stesicn ^8, 
Panyass. fr.ll Bernabe; Pherecyd.3 F 16c; Soph.7racA.1099f; Enr.Heracl.394 HippJ42r, 
Ar.Av.l757f, Nub.211;; Agroitas 762F3; ps.-Scyl. 108; EuphoU54 Powell; 
Ap.Rhod.4.1396f; Diod.4.26.3f; Liban.^f.22.2, 1257.2;*. 12.9.4) and with 




, Iff* 






Chapter 2. The Parks and Gardens of the Achaemenid Empire 

B. Achaemenid Material 


11 : 

suggestions that Xenophon's set-up at Scillus (Anabasis 5.3.7ff) had an eastern 
flavour (e.g. Birge 1982: 165, 216) cannot claim the support of any surviving 
post-Xenophontic references to the place or its groves as a parade isos. 145 Clearly 
there was never anything de rigeur about the term's use, even in propitious 
circumstances. It simply does not join the existing and traditional categories of 
landscape description in Greek. 146 

On the other hand, documentary Greek (and Hebrew) within areas of the 
former empire did find it convenient to adopt the word somewhat more thoroug- 
hly, a fact which may be reflected by a handful of literary sources (none of them 
with any necessary connection with mainland Greece or the west) in which the 
word could be regarded a mere horticultural term of art with no special overto- 
nes. 147 It is very hard to see why this should happen if the Persian word had 
consistently and solely been used to describe phenomena far removed in size and 
social status from the ordinary fruit-orchard. On the contrary, it is likely that this 
importation (eventually also reflected in technical contexts such as the Geoponi- 
ca) occurred precisely because the Iranian word was appropriate. Carroll-Spillek- 
ke 1989: 58f comments on the difficulty of grasping the distinction between 
paradeisos and kepos in the Zeno archive material (cf. n.149), where both can 
contain a similar range of trees, and suggests that paradeisoi are simply larger. 
But if this was ever true it was hardly universally and continuously so, to judge 
from the Egyptian documentary evidence (p.97f above). Perhaps the relevant tax 
regime was different in some way which happens not to show up in the sort of 
documentation we are dealing with. Or perhaps it is a matter of some specific 
(Iranian) characteristic of design, e.g. rigid separation of species or regularity of 
layout (cf. p. 105 [ii] above). 

5. Theophrastus' Historia Plantarum contains a fair amount of non-Greek 
material. Most relates to Levant, Cyprus or Egypt. Babylon is adduced for date- 
palms, corn cultivation (8.7.4) and drying of cereal produce in extremely hot sun 
(8. 1 1 .7). Media for seed corn storage (8.11 .6) and tragakanta (9. 1.3). Apart from 
one or two references to Sardis and one to Cappadocian Petra (8.1 1.5), Anatolia 
is absent. Persia figures as follows: 4.2.7 - Persian esteem for doum-palm as 
wood to make feet of couches; 3.14.3 - Persike karya = walnut; 4.4.2 - Persikon 
or Medikon = citrous fruit. The only items referred to which are positively flora in 
Persia are white mangroves in Persia and Carmania. One has absolutely no sense 

the after-life (Pi.a2.77f, fr.l29f; Ar./to*.326ff.,448f; IG xiv 642 =; 

mt.lte/>.614Cff.; [Plat]. Axioc h. 31 \Cf;*.8.6.10). Lucian's description of the 

Necracademy (Wf 2.23) as a paradeisos and Hesychius's inclusion of kai paradeisos at the 

end of a long gloss on Elusion are exceptional. 

That the animals and productive element differentiate Scillus from a grove (Birge 1982: 

1 15) merely shows that what we have is the description of an estate. Assimilation of it as a 
14* un *P aradeisos is a cat egory error like that at Araq el Emir (p.l 1 10 
i*k> acnoi.Luc.Wf 2.23 says that strict hellenizers consign the word eis to nothon tes Hellenidos 

phones. ° 

147 Ucsych.s.vernokomon; Luc.CaW.21; Geopon.2.26, 3.13, 10.1; Dioscur. 3.17,107, 4,8,110; 
Herod,an.3.2.449.17, 491.8; Clem.Strom.,6.12.1,7.18.111. 

that interaction with orient in the wake of Alexander led to e.g importation into 
Greek world of exotica characteristic of paradeisoi (4.4.1 in fact deals vv th 
attempts to import Greek things into paradeisoi in Babylon ') Whether Th* 
proves (i) that paradeisoi did not contain interesting exotica or (ii) that Greeks 
were simply not interested is arguable, but since Theophrastus at least ought to 
have been interested, the former conclusion seems more likely. Paradeisoi were 
not a characteristically new botanic research resource. 

6. Diodorus 14.80 describes the land between Mt Sipylus and Sardis as 
containing kepoi and a paradeisos laid out with plants and other things contribu 
ting to peaceful pleasure. This is the only text describing Achaemenid conditions 
which explicitly draws a distinction between gardens and paradeisos- and the 
only clearly comparable non-Achaemenid text is Diodorus again (5 19) 'this time 
describing his fantasy Atlantic island. (The relevance of Clearchus 43 Wehrli fcf 
p.101] is hard to judge.) The first at least could be illusory: other sources surest 
multiple paradeisoi in the Sardis vicinity, and one must wonder whether Diodor- 
us' source did not effectively count the paradeisos as one the "gardens" but one 
which earned separate mention because of its association with Tissaphernes A 
scatter of other passages (all of non-Achaemenid reference) do imply distinctions 
between paradeisos and other germane categories (e.g. grove, meadow) "8 and 
although one or two go in the opposite direction,"* the general pattern is for 
paradeisos to be an apparently free-standing concept. Yet conjunctions of lands- 
cape features which recall paradeisos sources are often encountered where the 
term is not. It is not always easy to see or imagine purely botanical reasons for 
avoidance of the Iranian term, though there seems to be a rule that if the setting is 
mainland Greek setting and/or there has some religious status or significance 
there will be no predisposition in favour of use of paradeisos. 150 In short, the 

148 Luc.G fl //.21 (agros, vineyards); Procop.^//.3.17, Long.2.12 (alsos); Procop.aed 1.3 6 (da- 

f°w, T ): PrOCOp * bellAA3 > C\cm.strom.6A.2\ (leim6n); Diod.19.21.3 (aulon); 
l.Mylas.206 and n.85 (vineyards); n.122 (alsS). 

149 £ ch - T at.U5: = alsos: walled, sheltered buildings, trees, flowers, spring and pools, birds. 
Anstob.139 F 51: the Pasargadae paradeisos includes an alsos and leimon. (Alsos is 
arguably a Greek perception of trees in close association with a high-status, quasi-heroic 
tomb. c f.n.i58, Birge 1982: 152.) Diod.2.10.1: the Babylonian Hanging Garden (paraded 
sos) imitates Persian mountain leimones. In Egyptian documents kSpouroi work inparadei* 
*" (P.Mich.Zen.45, P.Zen.Col.63 II 8), a paradeisos can be called a kSpos (P.Oxy.3366 [a 
rather imposing item, requested by a grammaticus by way of salary], PSI 697), and one 
?C7 ^ Q UntCrS ki P°P aradeisos (P.Mich.Teb.282 [also plain paradeisos], (?) PSI 1059). In 
M ?}» Zeno is toId t0 fcke 3000 olive shoots from "our paradeisos and the kSpoi in 
w'Mr*' IS thlS an intentionaI distinction? The further instruction that he is to choose 
wild olive and daphnis since Egyptian olive is not suitable for elaiones but (only) for 

150 P ° radeisoi d °s not clarify things. 

ehgious associations affect e.g. the Daphne sanctuary (Strab. 16.2.6, Liban.oraf.4.12, 
. 4f * E P Is t.Graec.556) or Gryneium (Paus.1.21.7) or various places described in Di- 
dorus (3.42.2f [Arabian Poseidium], 3.68.5f [Nysa], 5.43.1f [Arabian Panara], 17.50.1f 

l mmon]). The fact that Alciphron's "erotic" garden (4.13 = fr.6) is also a Nymph-garden 
ay cast light on the fact that it is called kepos or leimon, whereas Aristaenetus' "erotic" 

garden is aparadeisos. 








Chapter 2. The Parks and Gardens of the Achaemenid Empire 

B. Achaemenid Material 



pattern of use of the word is one which implies that the object has distinct 
characteristics (hence it is not used casually or attested very frequently); yet, 
except in the case of the hunting paradeisos, it is not clear what it is that is 
distinctive about the component characteristics which can be assembled from the 
sources (above pp.97-110) or the location of paradeisoi within (opulent) lands- 
capes. The most powerful parameters seem instead to be secularity and eastern 
association. 151 Degree of internal order may also count - Xenophon's admiration 
for the paradeisos of Cyrus and the paucity of classical texts claiming regularity 
of layout for gardens (or indeed groves) certainly suggest that the normal Greek 
garden had a relatively unregimented appearance 152 - and we should not neglect 
the nature of the place's relation with the surrounding landscape, in two senses: 
the paradeisos may have been particularly sharply distinct from its immediate 
environs (cf. above p. 122; though no true oasis ever gets called a paradeisos) and 
one reason why Cotys* Onocharsis resort (above p.96,99f) fails to be designated a 
paradeisos was perhaps that, although "well-constructed" (eu kateskeuasmenon), 
it was too much based upon a naturally existing locus amoenus and not enough on 
creation ex nihilo 153 

In the end, then, how unlike a Greek garden did a paradeisos have to be? 
Most people would assume that it was smaller, though actual attestation of garden 
size is virtually non-existent. 154 There were perhaps more likely to be flowers (as 
a utilitarian crop), though explicit references are not all that common, 155 and the 

151 The garden in Longus 4.2f may be a paradeisos (unlike the one in 2.3) partly because it is 
part of a larger congeries including (separately) agricultural land and hunting (an agros as 
1.1 puts it). 

152 Ar.Acfc.995 (rows of vine and fig with a surrounding circle of olives); Dem.53.16 (olives set 
peristoikhoi); Philostr.wwg. 1.6.1 (straight rows of apples trees); ps.-Liban.prog.l2.9.3f 
(successive stoikhoi of trees). Paus.2.1.7, Strab.8.6.22 refer to straight line of pines at 
Isthmian sanctuary. Compare also Philostr.Jzer.54.2-3. Archaeological remains at Curium, 
the Corinth Asclepion and the Athens Hephaestion, but not those at Nemea, show plantings 
in straight line. 

153 There are very few stories about the creation of (sacred) groves: Birge 1982: 193. 

154 Burford 1993: 136 reports a hellenistic Larissan garden of over 5 plethra, but this assumes 
that kapoureimenou comes from kdpos, which the original editor (Helly 1970: 259) denied. 
Alcinous* garden was tetraguos, i.e. 4 plethra or about 0.35 ha. Even in late antiquity 
"garden" connotes modesty of size: cf. Liban.</ectam.27.1.18 describing some land as 
katagelastoi kepoi not agroi. 

155 Flowers in kepoi: Long.2.3, Liban.oraf. 11.234, Arr.Ind.212, Hdt.8.138, Alciphr.4.13 = 
fr.6, Jap.234, Nonn.3.1140f, IG vii 1828 = Kaibel 811, Uban.orat. 18.243, BGU 
1119, PCZ 59359. Transplanted Pangaeum roses in Theophr./ZP 6.6.4, Athen.682D will 
have gone into gardens (Carroll-Spillecke 1989: 24). Zonar.7.10.8 reapplies the story in 
Hdt.5.92e, moving it from a cornfield to a garden with poppies. (Grass appears only 
occasionally: Philostr,ww£. 1.6.1; Liban.<tec/.40.2.67.) Flowers in alse: Strab. 8.3.12, 
Long.proem 1, Ai.Ran. 444, Meleag.78GP = AP12.256. (In the last two the flowers could 
only be on trees.) In Sapph.2 and Eur.M 1543f flowers are mentioned separately from the 
alsos (and located in a leimon), and in P.Oxy. 9 ii 10-14 the flowery meadow is explicitly 
next to the alsos. (For conjunction of alsos and leimdn cf. Aesch. Suppl.559, Od.629\l 
Orph. fr. 320 On the whole flowers are more associated with leimones than with gardens in 
Greek literature (Vatin 1974: 355). 

vegetable and salad products of Greek gardens are an important area of difference 
- the equivalent story to Artaxerxes' asking which paradeisos a pear came from 
involves Democritus, a garden and a cucumber (Plutarch Moralia 628C). 156 The 
overwhelming concentration on fruit trees in gardens differentiates them from 
both groves (which largely have non-fruit trees) and paradeisoi (which are 
ascribed both sorts). Even when donated to public benefactors (e.g. ICS 216; 
DGE 734), gardens give every appearance of being merely another category of 
profitable agricultural land. On an ideological front one must concede that, 
although there are texts which associate quality of rule with a fruitful natural 
environment, 157 the ancient near eastern association of rulers and gardeners 
(n.125) seems to have no clear Greek analogues. (Attalus Philometor's passion 
for growing poisons in the royal gardens might count as a late and perverted 
reflection). We have already (p. 1 16f) noticed a contrast in the matter of religious 
associations. The issue of funerary use is more finely balanced. Osborne 1992 
made a clear distinction here. Certainly most Greek evidence about funerary 
gardens is post-classical, and a classical Greek reader would be more likely to 
connect the arrangements in Pasargadae (p.88f) with the association of hero- 
tombs and trees. 158 (This is why Aristobulus introduced the word alsos into his 
description.) But two qualifications must be entered. Paradeisoi with tombs are 
not common (p. 107) and the chief differences between Cyrus* tomb and certain 
peribolos tombs in Athens (apart from the design of the monument) may have 
been scale and isolation. These are not insignificant differences, but one should 
stress that when, for example, Theophrastus opted to be buried in his garden, he 
was doing something which lay essentially within the confines of Greek cultural 
tradition (and which, of course may anyway have been done by earlier, but less 
famous individuals), not adopting an oriental practice. 159 Athenian philosophers' 
gardens evoke thoughts of education and (in the case of Epicurus, at least as seen 
by critics) sex. The sexual associations of the garden are, in general, far clearer 
than those of the paradeisos} 60 So are the educational ones: the tradition started 

156 Athen.7B, 69A (Strattis), 74C, Galen vi 542, 627-8, 634, 641 etc., x 492.8; Liban.oraf.22.31 
(in a show garden, moreover), 27.22; Luc.W/ 1.34; Dio 7.64,69. 

157 0^.19.109-114, Hes.Op.225-47, Dio 2.40f. West's note on Hes.lx. cites other more di- 
stantly relevant texts. Mm , ,„. _ oa D1 . w H 

158 Hom.//.6.418f, Ael. 5.17, Paus.2.28.7, 8.24.7, Theophr.///> 4.5 6, 13.2, 5.8.3, Plm.A^ 
16.88, Strab.5.1.8,9, 6.1.5, 8.3.19, 13.1.29, 14.1.31, FluUrto.ll, Thes.20 Tm0 ^ nat.deor3.57. Note also Strabo's description of Augustus Mausoleum (5.3.8), 
associated with an alsos with peripatoL Q , 

159 Theophrastus: Diog.Laert.3.39. Plato: id.5.53. Peribolos tombs: Garland 1982. 

160 Greek gardens and sex: Archiloch. 196a;; Plat ^^ 

(Heliades, implicitly compared with prostitutes, are "gardened" by Mnu. water), 
Plut.l098B, Athen.598B (supposed Epicurean sexual licence); ^PP^^^VS 
1.17.5; Alciphr.4.10.2, 4.13. (= fr.6).lff; Anth.Pal. 9.666; ^^^J^^Se 
re is a reverse association in Ibyc.286. Kepos as slang term for female ^^^^n 
Page, Diog.Laert.2.116, Hesych., Phot.s.v., Suda s.v. mousakhnes (C ^P"Jj?J 
[Eur.Cycl.l71], pedion [AUv. 507, LysM].) Aphrodite is as «^J* ^"^ 
Athens (Paus.. 27.3; Burn 1987:290 and Cyprus (Strab ,14.6.3 Groves an |£^^ 
= Athen.573F (Corinthian whores and the "grove" ofAphrodne); Birge 1982. 202f. 

i ■ 

1ft- ■' 








Chapter 2. The Parks and Gardens of the Achaemenid Empire 

by Plato's garden neither follows nor prompts any significant parallel involving 
paradeisoi. 161 On the contrary: Xenophon locates the education of Persian boys 
around the palace and public buildings Cyropaedia (1.2.3f) and the only learning 
which might occur inparadeisoi is of hunting Cyropaedia 1.3.14; 1.4.5,1 1) and- 
presumably - gardening (cf. Oeconomicus 4.20; Strabo 15.3.18). 

But there are also similarities. Some are relatively objective ones - absolute 
dependence on water; inclusion of various species of trees; location along roads 
or in proasteia\ capacity to become toponyms; use as locale of royal business; 
availability as place of residence (the same problems of distinguishing living "in 
a garden" from living in house to which garden is attached arise as with paradei- 
so/). 162 Other are matters of perception and association. Some of the same things 



other parts of the ancient near east cf. p. 81 n.3, SAA iii 14, Atrahasis (SBV) I 5. Gymnasia 
and sex: Ar.Wufc.972f; Plat. Phdr.255B; Athen.561D, 609D (Eros altar in Academy and 
other gymnasia). 

161 Philosophers' gardens: Diog.Laert.3.5,20, 4.19 (Plato), 4.60 (Lacydes), 5.39,52 (Theophra- 
stus), 10.10, 16f (Epicurus: cf. n.118), 10.25 (Apollodorus), Plut.842E (Melanthius). De- 
mocritus* garden-house (id.9.36) is slightly different, being intended to produce seclusion - 
compare, perhaps, Timon philokepos kai idiopragmdn (id.9.1 12). Education of gods/heroes: 
Paus.3.24.4, AnstidAsclepA2. 

162 Water.//. 21.257; Eur.£/.714;Hdt.4.181.4;Dem.50.61;PlatTim.77C,L^.845C; 
= 697KA; K6rte; Aiist.PA 668al4; Theophr.///> 7.5.2, char.20.9; Diod.2.37.5, 
17.47.6; Strab.16.4.21; Plut.688E,927B; Athen.351D; Philostr. Vit.Ap.2.26; Aristaen.1.17.5; 
Liban. orat.41.5;$.12.9.1,5; Aristid./H>r./o$.287; Galen in Plat.Tim. [Pa- 
ris.2838] fr.3, ii 210-21 1, 337; Aesop.fab.96,121, 122; PSI 158.71, P.Sarap.56; IG ii 2 2494; 
IG xii suppl.353. This is, of course, universal (cf. Isaiah 58.11, 7erem.31.12, Deut.UAO). 
Multiple = [Jul.] ep.391Cf: one can graft many things onto a fig tree 
and thus produce a kZpos holokleros since, as in the most lovely leimdn [!], it returns the 
splendour of many different and varied sorts of fruit. Suburbs.; Diod.34/5.2.13; 
P\\it.Arat.5, Afor.603F; Polyb. 18.20.1; Paus.1.19.2, 27,4 (with SEG xxxiii 167b II 6;Travlos 
1971 fig.229); Strab.3.5.7, 12.3.11, 17.1.10; Liban.orat. 11.234, 61.7 (describing a city as 
ktpois doruphoroumeni); SIG 3 46.15; IG xii 8.265,2f; IG xii suppl.353. It is evident that in 
Greece as in the Near East towns and cities were characteristically encircled by trees. Along 
roads: Plat./e$.845A; Theophr.c/wr.10.8; Theopomp. 115FF 89, 135. Toponyms. 
Theop.ll5F226 (Karos Kepoi); Dionys.Anapl.Bosp. p. S (K5pos)\ Diod.20.24.2, Strab.l 1.2.10, 
Steph.Byz.s.v. Psissoi, Plin.AW.6.18 (Kipoi); Callias ap.Athen.542A (Panormus region); 
Strab.14.6.3, PlinJV// 5.130 (Hierokepis), Paus.1.19.2 (suburb of Athens). Royal business. 
See n.137 and other eastern items (e.g. Elamites surrendering to King in a conifer plantation 
[Barnett 1976: lxi] or Sennacherib seated amidst vines and fruit trees to receive the 
supplications of the inhabitants of Lachish [Barnett & Forman 1960: pl.45, 47, 49; Reade 
1991: 47f]). Residence. The idea is implicit in the simile in Plat.Cnf.112B. In Sicily Plato 
lived in a ktpos next to Dionysius' oikisis in the Syracuse acropolis (Plat.epwf.347A, 
349Cf, ?\ut.Dion 19.5), a place for promenading (Plat.epwr.348B) and conversation (313A, 
319A) from which exit was impossible without the cooperation of the doorkeeper (347 A). 
Sources dealing with philosophers* gardens in Athens are often rather vague about the 
nature of the "residence" or diatribS involved. (The same problem affects the Mieza 
nymphaion: Plut.A/e*.7.) Dio 66.10.4 describes Vespasian as living (dietribe) in the Sallu- 
stian gardens, in a palace. Convalescence. Hippocr.rfe morb.pop.3A3. (The case is mentio- 
ned in Galen [ix 856; xvi 586; xviii 131], who insists [xvii 551-563] that the garden was not 
a permanent residence but a place selected for better katagoge when physically weak, and 

B. Achaemenid Material 


do not normally happen in gardens and paradeisoi, notably eating and drinking: 
neither the symposium nor the Persian King's Dinner is characteristically as- 
sociated with such a setting. Plato Republic 372B observes that eating out of 
doors reclining on stibades is feature of primitive lifestyles; and it is really 
striking that the Funeral Banquet iconography which so clearly relates to the 
Weinlaube image of Assurbanipal rigorously excludes the vine-bower and garden 
setting of the original. 163 

Again, while it is true that in reading through sources of Greek gardens one is 
certainly conscious of an air of mundane functionality - so that (for example) 
when Herodotus 4.109 notes that the Geloni keep gardens he is simply underli- 
ning their surprising committement to a non-nomadic life-style not imputing love 
of luxury - other overtones are not entirely lacking. As an anonymous author 
noted (CGA 21.2: p.72.3) the garden is an example of the usefully pleasurable 
(khresimeuonta eis apolausin). There was perhaps a strand of Greek thought 
(represented by Laertes' garden in Odyssey xxiv) to which the younger Cyrus' 
delight in horticultural labour was not necessarily wholly alien (Vatin 1974: 
3490* Gardens go together with Charites in Aristophanes and Pindar and can be 
an image of artistic creativity. 164 They are not too "base" an object for Euripides 
to describe the pure and untouched meadow of Hippolytus 73f as "gardened" by 
Aidos or to speak of Hecuba "gardening" the dead Astyanax's hair in bitter 
reversal of Astyanax' vow to cut it off at Hecuba's funeral (Troades 1 175). A 

notes that Sabinus, who had argued that it was not surprising the patient was ill if he lived in 
a garden, could have made his case stronger by e.g. alluding to the poor atmosphere in 
gardens caused by the presence of excrement in the water-channels!) 

163 Items such as Dentzer 1984: plates 1 16, 1 1 8, 122 or the Locris Clay Relief (? ritual context) 
are not significant exceptions. A belated Iranian reflection of Assurbanipal appears in 
ibid.plate 98. - Gardens are conspicuously absent in Slater 1991 except in some Roman 
contexts (124, 139 n.23). In Theophr.c^r.20.9 a vegetable rich garden is merely part of the 
resources from which a rich man entertains ungrateful guests. "Feeding on the gardens or 
Tantalus" as an image for transient pleasure (com.adespot.530 K) presumably **^™ 
the same idea. Liban.ep»*.18.3 speaks of drinking from a crater in the Muses garden as a 
image for literary study, and epist.%77.1 of a garden as a place to entertain. This, of course 
says nothing about classical Greek garden use. A few sources evoke eating W« «S? 
like: Luc.amor.12 (Aphrodite sanctuary at Cnidus), Strab.10.5.11, IG »i 9.906, 
For a Cypriot fete champetre cf. des Gagniers 1972. - r/J ;«. 

164 Charites AMv.1089 (KharitSn kepeumata visited by birds); Pi.O.9.27 (tend ng ; th e^« 
ton Khariton kapon is a metaphor for P°etic activity); Anst I d.^rW7L32PeaceJul 
enjoyment. Diod 14.80 (Sardis), 20.102.4 (Sicyon). A similar ^"™%*% 
Panara grove (Diod.5.43). Plut.603F treats a garden as a character.* t P^°^£ ^ 

Cornut.W associates them •■* -^^tStsS?^^^ 
^0.1x.;Plaa n534A;Uban.«p^l8J.85.1.1W^«^ Adonis in 

Lais finding Euripides writing in a garden. <"»»• ™?™f ^ , den of the Muses is an inverted reflection of the same theme.) There was ; a _garc i 
near the Athenian Lyceum (IG & 2613-1) of uncerain relation with Theophrastus gard 
(Diog.Laert.5.52f). See Vanderpool 1953/4, Ritchie 1989. = 

165 Gardening and hair coexist in less «^» ^"VZZZ^TvZL pathos is 
193KA;; Pollux 2.29; Luc.lexiph. 5. - Another piece oi g 

//.8.306f: a dying warrior's head is compared with a garden poppy. 









Chapter 2. The Parks and Gardens of the Achaemenid Empire 




garden is where innocent young girls can be imagined playing - and running the 
risk of seizure by pirates (Diodorus 4.27.4). Plato's purchase of what was pre- 
sumably an ordinary Athenian suburban garden for the purpose of philosophical 
intercourse shows that (in modern terms) such things could have more to do with 
lawns and arbours than cabbage patches. 166 "Peaceful enjoyment" is satisfied in 
the pages of Diodorus by Sicyonian gardens as well as Sardian paradeisoi (and an 
Arabian temple-grove), and (collectively at least) the gardens of Thebes were a 
source of delight (Heracleides 1.1). And they are not innocent of overtones of 
luxury. Classical and hellenistic Greek urban houses did not have planted cour- 
tyards, and it may have been relatively unusual for them to have adjacent 
enclosed gardens. 167 Outside the city-walls things were different, but to have a 
garden adjoining one's house and/or one perceived to be of sufficient size or 
distinctiveness for it to be worth specific reference in property documents seems 
to have been rare, to judge by the paucity of such references. 168 Plato could make 
Critias say that even the raising of fruit-trees was a matter of pleasure and 
entertainment (hedone, paidiai: Critias 115B). And while Pericles' remark in 
Thucydides 2.62.3 that the Athenians should regard use of oikia and of land as 
unimportant in comparison with naval power and as no more significant than a 
"little garden and adornment of wealth (enkallopisma ploutou)" may not imply 
that all gardens are expressions of conspicuous consumption it surely implies that 
some are. 169 I should say that exactly the same was true of paradeisoi, even if in 

166 Carroll-Spillecke 1989: 30 sees the philosophers' gardens as not entirely non-utilitarian but 
essentially "verkleinerte Parks" - i.e. presumably a miniature, privatised version of the 
Academy park. (Theophr.c/iar.7 might also be cited here.) But if so this is the end result, not 
the starting point. 

167 Adjacent house/garden: Isae.5.11, Dem.47.53f, Eur.£/.714, 1133, SIG 3 46: 15, 175, 
Diog.Laert.5.39, (?) DGE 734. Plat.5ymp.203B attributes such a house to Zeus. Steph.Byz.s.v. 
ge (cf. Phrynich.ap. AG 32. 1 ) says that a kepion pros tois oikois en polei is called a gepedon. 
See Carroll-Spillecke 1989: 18-23, 49ff, 60, 63-5. She is perhaps overinclined to see 
Olynthus as the characteristic classical urban space. Tod 202 = SIG 3 306 envisages both 
integral (= within 100 ft of the house) and distant gardens belonging to house-owners and, 
though Dicaeogenes had to demolish a house to get an adjacent garden en astei (Isae.5.1 1), 
his goal is not apparently something unique. Heraclides' description of Thebes (GGM 
1.1020 probably implies intra-urban gardens since two of the city's streams (Strophis and 
Dirce) flowed within the walls and the walled area was large compared with the likely 
population (Symeonoglou 1985: 119). (Timocleia's garden in Plut.A/eJt.12, Mor.260B is 
implicitly within the city.) At hellenistic Laodicea ad Mare there were intra-urban gardens, 
but all in a separate sector (Owen 1991: 82). On Antioch cf. Liban.oraf. 11.201. 

168 IG xii 5.872 (Tenos 4/3 c.) contains 47 transactions only one of which relates to oikia kai 
kepos. (The common phrase is oikia kai khorion.) SIG 3 178 (Delphi) is similar. SIG 3 46 
(Halicarnassus) has just two gardens. Athenian poletai records (IG i 3 417-423; ii 2 1579- 
1593; Hesp. 1982: 740 and rationes centesimarum (IG ii 2 1580, 1594-1603; Hesp. 1940:330f; 
AthMitt. 1942: 170 contain very few gardens. One is described with beautiful mundanity as 
"next to the cowshed" (IG i 3 425.43). 

169 Plato paid 2000 dr. in 388 for a small garden (kepidion: Diog. Laert.3.20; hortulus: 
fin.5.2) in the green belt north-west of Athens, and Epicurus 8000 dr. for a similar property 
late in the century (Diog.Laert.10.10; Cic. de or.3.63; Sen.ep.21.20; Juv.14.3 19). (For other 
price indications cf. Carroll-Spillecke 1989: 67.) A kepos symbolizes wealth in Soph. Ion 

B. Achaemenid Material 


their case we are apt (perhaps wrongly) to be more conscious of the enkallopisma 
ploutou - or dunameos - than of the possible relevance of diminutives. One 
should, of course, add - to keep things in perspective - that the long discourse on 
luxury in Athenaeus XII has little to say of gardens - and less of paradeisoi™ 
In sum, it seems probable that Persian gardens did not as a whole intrigue 
Greek observers nearly as much as one might think; they simply did not seem so 
very specially alien - especially when viewed in Western Anatolia (not so very 
different an ecological setting from mainland Greece) - except when associated 
with other things (kings, satraps) which were alien. Nor did they systematically 
imitate them in the fashion presupposed by Grimal's ill-founded thesis that such 
imitations were the inspiration for Roman luxury horti (Carroll-Spillecke 1989: 
13). This explains the pattern of use - and non-use - of the word, and provides 
additional constructive evidence for my fundamental contention, that the pa- 
radeisoi which are liable to preoccupy us are merely the fringe - albeit at times an 
ideologically charged fringe - of a very mundane phenomenon. 

\ * ' 



V ■ 


• »** 





c a ,• •»„ (r( Pi P 9 6 53ft, which is different. Slightly 
fr.320R, but only in virtue of productivity (cf. Pi .F.V.omh , utelis bios) an d 

more * propos are Epist.Graec.629 (two gardens are a way ^^JJ^, Sul . 31) , 
passages i/n .163. In the Roman world of course, garde J» «^£ ^X^ ostenta- 
evoke envy (id.Afor.88B) and dreams (Liban.oraU 1.17), and are tors o v 
tiously austere (Liban.oraf.18.28). r.ivkv« Ankon- Polycrates' laura; 

170 Relevant items are: the Lydian paradeisos of Hagneon or Glykys Ankon y committing 
Sybarite nymph grottoes; Onocharsis; Cimon's fruit gar den ^ n *™* ^ ^ 
sexual assault in flower-filled rooms; Gelon's Horn of Amalthe.a, Hieron Myt g 





I start with three texts, (i) The peroration of Demosthenes XIV: once upon a time 
Athens lived a life of repose - and achieved nothing. Then came the Persian Wars 
and Athens turned into a great power. 1 (ii) Aristophanes Lysistrata 653; we are 
squandering the eranos of our grandfathers which was derived from the Medika. 
(iii) Hermocrates (Thucydides 6.33): the Athenians after the defeat of Persia - 
which was very much an accident - won a great name because it was against them 
that the Persian expedition had been directed. 

Athens indeed owed much to Persia. Without the Persian threat there might 
have been no Athenian naval power. Without that power and the victory over 
Xerxes there would have been no Athenian empire and Athenians would not, 
perhaps, have been driven to some of the exercizes in self-definition, in turning 
themselves into special people, distinct from both the barbarian and from other 
Greeks, which characterize their classical history (I have in mind the invention of 
autochthony, the Periclean citizenship law, the abandonment of the old style of 
dress for another one equally suggestive of leisured ease but less discriminatingly 
luxurious in appearance, the claim to cultural primacy in both an agricultural and 
an intellectual sense). Only the Spartans are comparably important for the creati- 
on of classical Athens and its psyche. It is thus natural to investigate the impact of 
Persia in Athenian literature, to wonder what Athenians really knew about the 

One remarkable fact emerges straight away. Despite Athenian cultural pri- 
macy Athenian writers are, with one exception, not prominent among those who 
take Persia and its empire directly as a subject for literary activity. Herodotus, 
Charon, Dionysius, Hellanicus, Ctesias, Heracleides, Deinon - none of these is 
Athenian and all who have a known origin are east Greeks. Even the premier 
Athenian historian, Thucydides, is notably poor on matters Persian, despite their 
relevance to a history of the Peloponnesian War (Andrewes 1961), and he 
certainly contributes very little distinctive information about Persian institutions 
or customs - though the view that he was so puzzled by Tissaphernes that he 
combined two quite inconsistent judgments of the man without (apparently) 
noticing is unconvincing (Westlake 1989). 

The one exception, of course, is Xenophon - but he was an expatriate 
Athenian and it was his expatriate experiences which made him an observer of 
matters Persian. (With perfect symmetry they also made him an observer of 
matters Spartan - a more critical one than he is usually given credit for: cf . Tuplin 

1 cf.Dem. 14.40, Isoc.6.42, 12.52, 14.59, 15.233, 307, 16.27, Andoc.1.107. 

A. Tragedy 


1993, 1994a.) 2 My interest is in Athenian authors whose exposure to Persian 
information was not unusually strong. In short, what knowledge was shown or 
assumed by authors working in historiographical, theatrical, rhetorical or philo- 
sophical genres, and how could they exploit this knowledge? 


If we are talking of self-definition, Attic tragedy is arguably the most prominent 
genre whether in general or in particular relation to matters barbarian. The latter 
aspect has been investigated by Hall 1989, who argues that the Persian Wars 
played a crucial role in the barbarian stereotypes found in tragedy - and in 
classical Hellenic culture generally. There may be some truth in this (though one 
should perhaps think more in terms of the reinforcement and extension of such 
stereotypes than their creation 3 ); but the focus of the present investigation is 
rather different - to search out material which is either explicitly Persian or (we 
judge) was bound - even in the absence of technical terminology or other clear 
ethnographical markers - to evoke Persia fairly specifically, as the subtext to a 
description of some mythical barbarian or even of a renegade or morally dubious 
Greek. The second category is tricky, and the more correct Hall's general analy- 
sis is, the more tricky it becomes, since the creation of a free-standing barbarian 
stereotype - or "vocabulary of barbarism" - may imply that those who use the 
stereotype have lost the sense of ethnic particularity which originally attached to 
the components. Particular texts exploiting the stereotype may cease to be instan- 
ces of an author exploiting information about Persia: instead of presuming on 
knowledge about Persia he may be presuming only on acceptance of; a l racia 
prejudice But even if we allow that the true test is not whether a particular 
phenomenon automatically evokes Persia, but whether most «»Mp(OTes,tf 
questioned, would come up with the information that the custom in question was 





On Xenophon and Persia see e.g. Hirsch 1985, Briant 1966, Tuplin 1990, 1994a, (forthconr- 

SSat tartaros is rarely attested before the PersianWars ^^^ 
313 P., Corinna 4 P, Hecat.lFl 19, Hercalit. 22B 107), But "Greek is als ^™™£ 
developed concept in surviving texts ^^j£ S^S ^ried 
existence of hellenic sentiment (Levy 1991. 52) and we snouia " . ( x outside 

references to particular *^^2^™^X^«*»* 
Sappho), neutral, ambiguous (e.g. Arch.42 [Thracians ana rnryg 

red^itn/^l.Hippon^A ^f^^^^S^^^^ 
1, ps.-Theogn.829 [Scythians], Arch.93 W, Hippon.ll 3 Lin ra j 
Hippon.27 [Phrygians]) - are inconsistent with a f».^^S^S d ) an d wears 
baZarophSnoSLres of Z/.2.867 have a leader ^^^^^Z no nous: 
gold in battle "like a girl". Here we have mtellectua ^Scto to speak properly - 
Plat.rim.44A, Kep.441AB, ^Om^o^^^P^^ &$ PJ^, 
all central to the barbarian stereotype. That the Canans can a 
(properly Greek?) Miletus probably easts light upon the negabve descnpt.on. 


Chapter 3. The Place of Persia in Athenian Literature 



Persian, although this loosens the criteria, it may still not greatly widen the range 
of information presumptively attested as familiar to Athenians: in the end, after 
all, stereotypes by their nature are apt to make repeated use of relatively small 
amounts of "fact". 

The world of fifth century tragedy had, of course, little room for direct 
mention of Persia in its own right, and of the few relevant plays only Aeschylus' 
Persae survives. (Phrynichus' Phoenissae and Capture of Miletus are the only 
reasonably certain other instances). 4 As Hall notes, the extent of the Persian 
coloration even of Persae has been disputed, the issue being tied up with interpre- 
tation of the play as a whole: is Aeschylus trying to highlight the Greek/Persian 
distinction and suggest that the fate which falls on Xerxes is peculiarly tied up 
with the faults of the Persian polity and society? Or is he trying to mark Greeks 
and Persian as different indeed, but not excessively so, in the hope of suggesting 
that Xerxes' faults are in the end human ones, to which Greeks might be a 
susceptible as Iranians? Hall's preference is to see the theatrical impact of Persae 
as potently oriental and alien and, especially within the parameters of 470s 
tragedy, this may well be right. But the amount of distinctively, ethnographically 
Persian material deployed in producing the end result is actually quite limited, 
and on a rigorous view could reduce just to the following: 5 

(1) A number of Persian or Persian-sounding, but actually fake, names. 

(2) Knowledge that Persians called Greeks "Ionians". 

(3) Knowledge of the title Great King. 

(4) Knowledge of one version of Persian costume (tiara and phalara and yellow 
shoes are mentioned; what was shown we cannot know). 

(5) Perception of tribute, law and proskynesis as characteristic features of the 
Persian polity. 

(6) Knowledge of the decimal organisation of the Persian army - unless indeed 
the recurrence of commander-titles involving myrio- is merely tribute to an 
obsession with size. 

Once one moves outside Persae the haul is no less modest. 

(a) The title "Great King" is reflected in Troades 1217 (megas anaktor) and 
Rhesus 379 (megas basileus) 6 - in the latter case next to a strikingly hybristic 
virtual identification of Rhesus and the god Ares, something not, of course, 
proper to a real Great King. 7 

4 Daumas 1985: 290 reckons Aeschylus' Mysians and Phrygians dealt with "affaires Perses" 
- for no apparent reason. 

5 Criteria for selection are quite tight; they exclude e.g. the arguably Achaemenid overtones 
of pistos and doulos in passages of Sophocles Oe&Tyr. (cf. Francis 1992: 343, 349; pistos 
T^AA gU l eS m Persae) ' ~ An earl y c roesus tragedy has been inferred from hydria Corinth 
1 1 144, though Hammond/Moon 1978 thought this depicted Darius emerging from his tomb 
in the manner of Aeschylus' play (cf. adesp.5e). There is no way of dating fr.adcsp.372 
where Croesus and Xerxes are adduced as examples of the way that the proudest rulers end 
up in Hades like everyone else. (Bergk thought the text iambographic.) 

435 describes Rhesus as imposing dasmos on the Scythians, dasmos being the word 
specially associated with the Persian imperial tribute (Murray 1966). 
7 Pans potkiloi thylakoi (E.Cyc/.182), in conjunction with a gold necklace, are perhaps 

A. Tragedy 


(b) Orosangai (benefactors) appear in Sophocles Helen's Wedding fr.183 and 
Troilus fr.634, and parasangs in the same author's Andromache fr.125 and 
Poimenes fr.520. (The source which reports the latter fact claims that parasang 
was used to mean "messenger"; perhaps he misunderstood a passage which spoke 
of messengers and the road-system and hence mentioned parasangs in their 
proper sense as a measure of distance.) Sophocles' Andromache fr.135 also spoke 
of a sareton, glossed as a mesoleukos chiton or sarapis, terminology which is 
certainly assimilating the thing to a Persian garment, and Ion fr. 59 mentioned a 
kypassis? With full context we might see that these pieces of Iranian terminology 
were intended to insure that a negative colour attached to some character in the 
plays. In the light of Agamemnon's eventual decision to ape Priam and walk on a 
carpet of expensive material and of other aspects of his behaviour, we will surely 
also see a negative tone in the use of angaros (messenger) as a metaphor for the 
beacon chain in Aeschylus Agamemnon 282. Tiresias is called a magos in 
Oedipus Tyrannus 387, perhaps with specifically Achaemenid overtones, and the 
Phrygian who speculates that Helen's disappearance in Orestes is due to "the arts 
of magor (1496) is arguably thinking of "real" magoi} Sophocles Triptolemus 
fr.609 used the word orindes (rice-bread), which has an Iranian root: it is 
impossible to know how consciously he was aware of this. (The context is 
presumably a survey of the range of agricultural products whose availability is 
ultimately due to the Athenian culture-hero Triptolemus, so if Sophocles was 
aware of the etymology there could be a special piquancy in the fact.) 

(c) Aeschylus describes Memnon's mother as Cissian (fr.405) and ascribes to 
the Choephoroi a lament "in the Aryan strain of Cissia" (423) - presumably they 
are imagined to be Trojan War captives. 

(d) Impalement, proskynesis and "barbaric" use of fans appear in various 

places. 9 





specifically Persian too: cf. M.Wasps 1087, which speaks of Persians (and recalls Persae 
424). Long 1986: 90 claims pellutra in as Persian, but this is less certain. 
See Rigsby 1976: 105, Francis 1992: 340f. Other relatively early texts relevant to magoi are 
Heraclitus 22B14, Gorg.Hel.lO (goeteiai kai mageiai) (mago, and tynwo- 
poioi), Aeschin.3.137 (magos, goes), Hippocr.<fe rn.rfc.sae. 1 (people who claim epilepsy is 
a sacred disease are magoi, purifiers, mendicant priests, humbugs) Theophr.W 9.15./ 
(moly is used for ta aleJphaLka kai tas mageias), tr.adesp.592 ("the tragedians _ use he 
word mageia"), tr.adesp.700a = POxy 213 (ref. to magous pagas ™g'cal traP ^ ex 
variously attributed at one time or another to Aeschylus and Sophocles). The claim that all 
of these refer to "real" magoi is disputable. ..,. rt7 . mF punen 291 

Impalement ( E.IT 1429, *fc«.513) and proskynesis ( S0T ™± P ™ e ^ed 
Or 1507, 7V.1021,fr.adesp.l 18a) at least are phenomena which P^^ 1 * jj^^ 
Persia. Fans (E.Or.1426) might be more arguable especially Z™*'*™*^ 
Attic pots showing men in luxurious clothing ,™^<£ffl C ' re ot r ^ 
instruments who are apt to be seen as "Lydians (cf. n.76 below). lner * 
appearing in tragic texts which we may incline to associate ^^J^. 6 ^ 
(Pnry, koen,; E.0,1528) or ™™^™» £££££ than The 
the mixothSres photes, horsemen and deer-and lion-hunts souna 
scenes of clashes between "swell-oared ships" and Greek vessels. 


Chapter 3. The Place of Persia in Athenian Literature 



(e) There is also a reference to Persia and Media in Bacchae to which I shall 
come back in a moment. 

This is not much to show. It demonstrates that, if Persia provided the model 
for a barbarian stereotype, then it became a thoroughly assimilated stereotype 
which did not need to carry many ethnographically precise markers. This will 
apply also to the dressing of characters in (partly) Persian clothes even when the 
text does not explcitly draw attention to the fact. (This sort of thing happens on 
mythological vase-painting too, not necessarily unconnectedly. 10 ) But if the 
material is modest in quantity, it is nonetheless copious compared with that from 
fourth century tragedy, which makes an astonishingly small impact in most 
contexts and almost none in the present one, where there are just five points to 
register: (a) Cleophon wrote a Persis, (b) Theodectes wrote a play about Mauso- 
lus, (c) somebody may have written one called Persai - if the so-called Darius 
Vase (i) reflects a tragedy at all and (ii) something other than the revival of a fifth 
century classic, 11 conditions which are probably not satisfied - (d) an unattribu- 
ted fragment (685) of uncertain date contains the word Person and some of the 
tragikoi who used the word mageian (fr.adesp.592) may have been fourth century 
ones, (e) a hellenistic author invented a letter supposedly written by the Selybm- 
rian tragic poet Polyidus to Darius III after Issus, assuring the king of his life-long 
eunoia and reporting that Alexander was treating the captive members of the 
royal family well (PSI 1285 II 12-111 7; Pack 21 14). One speculates in vain about 
what actual facts about Polyidus and/or his tragedies suggested this invention. 
There were, of course, many tragedies on Trojan War subjects (and some on other 
oriental topics) in which Persian material might have surfaced. But if so it is now 
lost. There is little more to do than note the rather appropriate coincidence that 
performance of an "old" tragedy during the tragic festivals - which institutionali- 
zed the genre's decline - started in the year of the King's Peace, and pass on to 
other genres (comedy, philosophy, oratory) which may have more to tell us. 

Before doing so, however, and before becoming largely embroiled in matters 
institutional, a brief divagation on the sense of Persia as a place is in order. 


As is well known Greek sources offer two distinct pictures of what Persia was 
like. In the mid fifth century various passages in Herodotus treat the landscape as 
restricted in space, rough, mountainous and unproductive and its inhabitants as 
akhrematou who drank water, wore leather and had no figs (1.71, 1.89.2, 9.122). 



e.g. Andromeda with sleeved chiton and trousers (Basel BS 403, Miller 1985: pl.30a), 
Andromeda with candys (Berlin 3237, Pronomos Ptr. c. 400 BCE), other Andromeda items 
in LIMC s.v. Also Medea on the Lateran Relief and ARV 2 1338 (1) = Ruvo Jatta 231 (Talos 
Ptr.) ' 

The PERSAI label may not be a title (the Darius Painter has a general taste for labels). There 
is a tendency now to play down connections between Apulian painting and tragedy. See 
Schmidt 1982; Villanueva-Puig 1989. 

B. Persian Landscape and Geography 


Only after the conquest of Lydia did the Persians become exposed to an opulent 
life-style, though Cyrus resisted Artembares' proposal that they should actually 
decamp to a less harsh land. One might be forgiven for having the impression 
that, if there is any geographical "fact" behind the initial Greek picture of Persia, 
it is simply the stark contrast between the fertile plains of Mesopotamia and 
Elam, wherein lay the imperial metropoleis most familiar to outsiders, and the 
imagined conditions of the land in and beyond the Zagros to their east from which 
both Medes and Persians had descended into the "civilised" world. 

After the Macedonian conquest the picture changes. The description of the 
Babylonian Hanging Gardens in Diodorus 2.10, which has been attributed to 
Cleitarchus (Bigwood 1978: 45 n.ll), says they were intended to imitate "mea- 
dows in the mountains" of Persia and in general to reproduce "the peculiar 
character of Persian landscape". Curtius (5.4.6f) speaks of a spacious and fertile 
land behind the continuous wall of the Zagros, with all sorts of herbae, flores and 
trees, watered by the rivers Araxes and Medos and occupied by numerous 
villages and cities - a region moreover very healthy on account of its moderation 
in respect of heat. This evidently corresponds to the middle of the three zones of 
Persis defined in Arrian Indica 40.3 (Nearchus) and Strabo 15.3.1 (727C) (Era- 
tosthenes), viz: (a) hot, sandy and sterile (save for dates), this being the area by 
the Red Sea; (b) a plateau region with rivers and lakes, full of grassy meadows, 
pasture for animals and horses, arable land capable of producing vines and indeed 
everything except the olive, and paradeisoi; and (c) a mountainous, wintry and 
snow-bound area on whose borders live breeders of camels. (Compare also 
Strabo 15.3.6 [729], 10-1 1 [730], Arrian Anabasis 6.28.7.) Diodorus' description 
of the land on the Susa-Persepolis route east of Klimax (19.21.2f [317 BCE]) is in 
the same mould: high, healthy air, full of seasonal produce, a region of shady 
aulones and paradeisoi with pleasant resting places at the well-watered meeting 
places of glens. There are plenty of animals and a notably high population or 
exceptionally warlike people. (The coexistence of warlike temperament with this 
idyllic landscape is a remarkable turn-around from the Herodotean view that it 
was a rough land which produced a people capable of conquering the world _ - 
except for Greece, whose heritage of poverty was a match for them.) With tne 
Macedonian conquest comes also the first indisputable knowledge and _descnp- 
tions of Persepolis itself (Diodorus 17.69f, Curtius 5.4.33ff); neither of these is 
perfectly coherent, perhaps, but at least they give a clear impressior i of he 
Mountain of Mercy with its tombs, the city in the plain and, in between, 
elevated terrace serving as palace and akra. 

But if a new and clear picture of country and capital P^"^/^ 
sources surviving for us when the Makedonian conquerors have arr ved ^ ,t s 
hardly the case that the facts were totally unknown before then If C tesias reauy 
served as the royal doctor he must have accompanied his royal masfcr to Ftou. 
and Persepolis at various junctures, and the evidence survives * J**""^? 8 
historic/work. The occasional use of Persai ^J^^\°SS2 
found even in Hellenistic texts Berossus 680 F 1 1) and wnen rt ^ nl 

688 F 36 a story about birds en Ekbatanois kai en Persms we should certain y 


+ * 




nd Hi 




Chapter 3. The Place of Persia in Athenian Literature 

B. Persian Landscape and Geography 




interpret the latter as a city-name, even if in many other cases we cannot be sure 
whether Persai signifies Persia or Persepolis. 

Going earlier than Ctesias, who was certainly a privileged witness, is not so 
easy. But he had similarly privileged predecessors. Just to stick with doctors, 
Democedes and Apollonides must have penetrated Persis. Moreover documen- 
tary sources provide actual evidence of Greeks bureaucratically employed in and 
around Persepolis from fairly early in its history, and Greek artists clearly worked 
there on occasion 12 . More generally, the very existence of the Fortification and 
Treasury archives, which reveal Persepolis' role as administrative centre, casts 
great doubt upon any lingering belief that it was somehow a purely ritual em- 
placement and accordingly off-limits to foreigners, 13 so there can be no reason in 
principle to deny that there were Greek visitors to Darius' new city from the 
outset - though the Persian authorities will, of course, have controlled travel for 
purely secular reasons and we are not at liberty to doubt what is implied by the 
general run of the evidence, namely that those who travelled to the King's court 
for political reasons went no further than Susa. 14 

Why then does Herodotus' picture of Persia remain one which, as we have 
seen, looks as though it is dictated by artificial patterns of thought rather than 
exact knowledge? Is it just that, although there were Greeks who had been there, 
they were not after all very numerous and Herodotus never chanced to meet one? 
This is, of course, quite possible. But is it plausible that none of the various 
intermediaries who were responsible for the transmission of information about 
the history of the Achaemenid dynasty and the customs of the Persian aristocracy, 
information which after all came ultimately from Persian sources (i.e. people who 
knew what Persis was like), ever had occasion to say anything about the geogra- 
phical characteristics of the imperial homeland? I am inclined to think that what 
we find in Herodotus is principally a tribute to the capacity of artificial notions of 
what the truth ought to be to take precedence over reality, even when that reality 
is known. The supposition that Persia was an unremittingly harsh land was 
deemed to make some sense of the Persians' rise to international power (it may 
even have been encouraged by the Persians themselves) and the reality of the 
matter was not nearly interesting enough in its own right to displace the idea. 

In our present context the notable thing is that the Herodotean conception, 
already artificial in his time and made more outdated by Ctesias, is still maintai- 
ned in Plato Laws 695A - the Persians were shepherds, the offspring of a rough 
land. This proposition is also embedded in a schematic context, one contrasting 

12 Bureaucracy: Lewis 1977: 12f, 1994: 27. (There are at least three more texts referring to the 
secretary Yauna in addition to those registered in Hinz & Koch, viz. T-974, T-1040, T- 
1752.). Artists: e.g. Pugliese Caratelli 1966, Nylander 1970, Boardman & Roaf 1980, 
Kawami 1986. Other workers: PT 15, PF 1224, 2072. 

13 The stress on "purely" is important. The difficulties of the Nowruz hypothesis do not, of 
course, mean that ceremonial events did not occur at Persepolis (cf. Sancisi-Weerdenburg 
1991), F 

14 This phenomenon presumably has some relation to the pattern of the King's "nomadic" 
circulation amongst the capitals (Briant 1987; Tuplin [forthcoming (c)]). 

"good" kings (Cyrus, Darius) with their corrupt children (Cambyses, Xerxes), 
and contains another artificial idea, viz. the contrast between Persian austerity 
and Median luxury which is so prominent in Xenophon's Cyropaedia and which 
was (exceptionally) adduced by Aristotle {Politics 1312A) as part of the explana- 
tion for Cyrus' revolt against Astyages. 15 It becomes clear that the fourth century 
Athenian sense of Persia as a real place could remain quite defective, though one 
might allow that the fashion in late fifth century Athens for the Persian kaunakes 
(Aristophanes Wasps 1 1 35f) - a shaggy garment which could be seen as a luxury 
version of a shepherd's cloak - perhaps helped maintain the image. 

Most of the time, of course, it is not so much defective as absent in literary 
sources. Four things are worthy of note. 

(1) Euripides makes Dionysos at the start of Bacchae come from the sun- 
beaten flat lands of Persia and the wintery land of the Medes (14-15). In a context 
which speaks of the golden ways of Lydia and Arabia eudaimon these descrip- 
tions are clearly cliche - though some have suspected late classical or hellenistic 
interpolation hereabouts because there is also a reference to Bactrian teiche 
(forts), an understandable description but (it is felt) one not likely to be available 
to a late fifth century Athenian tragedian. I think that this may be excessively 
pessimistic. So far as Persia and Media are concerned I take that both the 
adjectives are meant to convey a negative impression: Persia is too hot, Media is 
too wintry. If so, we have no real deviance from the Herodotus / Plato picture - 
and indeed the same contrast with more favoured oriental places in the shape of 
Lydia and Arabia. 

(2) The mountains found in the Herodotean and the post- Alexandrian picture 
of Persia also appear in Aristophanes, where the Medos-bird in Birds 274f is 
oreibates, a mountain-walker, 16 and in Acharnians the King visits his Gold 
Mountain. In the latter case, at least, Aristophanes is strictly not so much talking 
about Persia proper (or about the area of the King's capital), since the King 
spends a round eight month trip on going to the Gold Mountain. It is true that you 
would need to go far to the east of Susa to find gold mines in the mountains of 
central Asia or India (Cassio 1991), but is Aristophanes displaying knowledge of 
this? Perhaps he has rather simply combined awareness of the huge size of the 
empire (already a subject of jokes in the same passage) and of its absurdly 
extravagant wealth to produce his image of the king defecating on a pile of gold 
the size of a mountain - and done so without even consciously thinking or 
"Persia" as a mountainous place. The Birds passage, on the other hand, certainly 
does presume a mountainous Persia, but despite the presumed sumptuousness or 
the Medos-bird's costume one cannot strictly deduce whether Aristophanes sub- 
scribed to a Herodotean or Ctesian image of the geography of the heart ol tne 

15 AristotArchytas (ap.Athen.546A) has Polyarchy a notorious hedonist claim that the 
enjoyment of physical pleasure stimulated the Medes to overthrow the Assyrians and 
Persians to overthrow the Medes. 

16 Does oreibates also evokes Dionysiac (i.e. oriental) practices . 






Chapter 3. The Place of Persia in Athenian Literature 

ill , 

(3) Herodotus uniformly regards Susa as the capital of the Persian empire and 
as we have seen not until Ctesias is there an indisputable reference to Persepo- 
lis. 17 It is between these two places that modern talk of the "capital" tends to 
move (Susa as political and Persepolis as ritual). But the Great King's annual 
round of his metropoleis (Briant 1987; Tuplin [forthcoming (c)]) took in Ecbata- 
na as well (a place of summer retreat from the heat of Elam or Persis). It was in 
Ecbatana that the author of Ezra (6.1) claimed that a copy of Cyrus' edict about 
the Jews was discovered in Darius' reign - a story presupposing that the Median 
city was not just a retreat but served as a capital as well. Its downgrading in 
modern times is undoubtedly due to its being, unlike Susa and Persepolis, 
unexcavated. Here at least Athenian sources are not open to criticism. Ecbatana 
duly appears in Aeschylus' Persae (14, 535, 961), though the play appears to be 
set in Susa. Various Aristophanic passages concur. Acharnians 61f and 613 
clearly regard is as the Persian capital - the place to which Athenian embassies 
travel on expenses. Bdelycleon's Persian cloak in Wasps (1143) comes from 
Ecbatana, though Philocleon observes that his ignorance of what it is shows that 
he has never been to Sardis - the closest Persian metropolis, one might say. 
(Dascyleium, incidentally, is never mentioned in Athenian authors other than 
historians). Finally in Knights 1089 we hear of a prophecy that Athenians will 
one day listen to court cases in Ecbatana: the subtext is that, when they eventually 
rule the world, the Median city will be their metropolis. Exacly the same situation 
prevails in fourth century Athenian authors - or rather the one relevant text is in 
accord, viz. Demosthenes 10.34, which describes the Persian King as the "prince 
in Susa and Ecbatana". Of course, it did not take much special knowledge to 
know where the imperial capitals were and one cannot claim much for Athenian 
authors on this ground. The point is rather that, while we are priding ourselves on 
remembering how difficult it is to prove that awareness of Persepolis was at all 
widespread, we should not forget that everyone knew about Ecbatana. 18 

(4) The knowledge of Ecbatana may possibly have played some role in 
maintaining that characteristic Greek habit of referring to Persians as Medes. But 
I should not be inclined to stress it because this terminological mixture operates 
according to special schematic rules of its own (Tuplin 1994b). Essentially we 
may be sure enough that for most of the late archaic and classical period everyone 
knew that the Achaemenid empire was a Persian one and would speak in those 
terms when talking of individual Persians or of the institutions and customs 
proper to the Achaemenid world. "Mede" was not used interchangably with 



The town of the Persians" of Acsch.Pers.X5 cannot in context safely be interpreted as 
Persepolis. Presumed Athenian ignorance of the place means that they failed to see the 
ironyofMto^rj^fo (Ar.Nub.961 [with Dover ad locj; Lamprocl. la = PMG 735; Dio 
U.19; Aristid, 162J; Suda s.v. teleporos) or Marikas perseptolis (EupoU92K =207KA). 
1 here are post-classical texts which create a slight impression that Bactra came to be 
regarded as a capital (cf. Charit.5. 1, 6.8 [fictional classical context], Himer.34.35 [Democe- 
des] Beross. 680 F 11 [Artaxerxes II], Plut.344 A, Dio 4.51,53, 6.1, 12.10, Curt.4.5.8, 
tiist.Alex.Magn A,B,G 2.17 [Alexander]). But the impression may be unreliable and we 
cannot reasonably re-evaluate Eurip. Bacch.U (cf. above) on this basis. 


C. Comedy 


"Persian" but was largely reserved for contexts in which the focus of thought was 
on the collective mass of an oriental power threatening the Hellenic world. It is 
the ossification of what was already strictly a terminological inexactitude used in 
the days of the original appalling descent of the Iranians on western Anatolia in 
the mid-sixth century. It is characteristic that the Persian Wars were labelled ta 
Medika. it is also characteristic that in the fourth century Medika starts to be 
replaced by Persika in some authors (Xenophon and Aristotle favoured Medika, 
Isocrates and Plato Persika). I suspect that the serious reappearance of Persian in 
the high politics and warfare of the Greek world from the late fifth century 
onwards plays a role in this. 


From one point of view "Persia" means "the Persian Empire" and one might 
expect such a point of view to be particularly natural to mainland Greeks, placed 
as they were on or just beyond the extreme western edge of the empire. As a 
matter of fact, however, it does not quite turn out like this. There are P^nty of 
passages in old and middle comedy - and in the orators and philosophers - which 
refer to specific eastern countries which lay within the boundaries of the Empire. 
There are various patterns within this material (e.g. old comedy says far more 
about Anatolia than about the Levant, whereas middle comedy reverses the 
relationship); but what is common throughout is that the vast majority of texts 
operate in what might be called a strictly ethnographic fashion: that is they make 
reference to real or supposed cultural or social characteristics peculiar to the areas 
involved and they do so without any regard whatsoever to their being part of a 
larger and alien political entity. These passages display knowledge, fnvolous or 
otherwise, of foreign places; this knowledge may touch on fe°d" />"" such 
as eastern luxuriousness, tyranny or cowardice, but it is not demonstrably simply 
dictated by general stereotypes about barbary, let alone by general ««"OT? 
which are themselves created by "Persian" facts." One could perhaps regard th^ 
situation as reflecting the fact that the Achaemenid Empire was not _ a pol meal 
structure which imposed cultural uniformity on Us subject areas bu U wrcjdte 
unduly optimistic to infer positive Athenian knowledge or appreciation of this 
fact -and that is what one is really looking for. 

Of course, there may have been more overlap between ^ ^ ^ 
oriental cultural phenomena than now appears clear. A P««^ "J*£ Z 
K = 230 KA about Sardian red covers together wxth "ory-footed J c £ s *£ 
purple blankets could have originally belonged in a description of a Persian 

.9 Long's remark (1986: 116) that "the p.easures of the ^^ZfC^l 
Achlrnians] are broadened out and extended ^ ^"s barbanan Jan* £ M 
Long cites here Anaxandndes 41K = 42KA «- jjjjj^ sLo^es to F^e images 
and Cyprus respectively; but Athen.ans d.d not need P^' a " St ^ hae y menid Persia n cultural 
of such places. (That both Thrace and Cyprus m.ght be under Achaem 
influence is another matter.) 





V : 








Chapter 3. The Place of Persia in Athenian Literature 

C. Comedy 



HI' ? 


satrapal banquet (cf. Acharnians 112 for Sardis-Persia connections). But we 
certainly ought not automatically to assign speculative Persian contexts to anything 
connected with those parts of the orient with which Greeks had long contact and 
familiarity (Anatolia, Levant, Egypt). Panhellenist orators were, of course, inte- 
rested enough in the empire as such to argue that Persia's hold on it would prove 
vulnerable if the Greeks mounted a crusade; and the original context of fragmen- 
tarily preserved material may sometimes have been one in which the politico- 
military issue of Persian control - or lack of control - of an area was important. In 
Anaxandrides' Cities someone explains that one cannot make an alliance with 
Egypt because the Egyptians are people whose customs, especially religious, are 
persistently the opposite of those of Greeks (39 K = 40 KA). Given the play's title 
we could be dealing with a political comedy in which possible Greek contribu- 
tions to Egypt's continuing independence from Persia were a significant subject. 
If the title of Epigenes' Little Monument really refers to the Mausoleum (fr. 6 K = 
6 KA speaks of the elegant party-habits of Pixodarus of Caria), then the play 
could have had things to say about the relationship between native satraps and 
central authority. But all this obviously remains entirely speculative - and not- 
hing impels one to believe that the playwright's observations would have been 
unusually well-informed or discerning. When the focus is more distant parts of 
the orient, the situation may change a little. 

In this context one might notice three other non-Persian oriental items. First, 
Aristophanes Babylonians. No actual fragment contains anything specially orien- 
tal, unless it be the infantryman's wicker shield in fr. 65 K = 650 KA (an 
unascribed fragment often attributed to Babylonians, though not by Kassel/ 
Austin). But, since the chorus of chained Babylonians were apparently seen as 
Athenian imperial subjects, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the play 
assimilated the Persian and Athenian empires. Second, Birds 1022. Here the 
episkopos is greeted as Sardanapalus. Whether this shows he was dressed extra- 
vagantly or is just a verbal hint at an excessively self-important demeanour it 
surely associates the would-be imperial power with the orient. Moreover where a 
reference to e.g. Croesus or an Egyptian pharaoh would naturally be taken at face 
value, Sardanapalus is already a "constructed" or mythistorical figure and the 
inclination to see him as a hint at the contemporary oriental empire (and recall the 
wish of Balcer 1977 to connect episkopoi with the King's Eye) seems defensible. 
Of course, the analogy is not well maintained, since the episkopos wants to return 
to Athens to hear a debate about relations with the satrap Pharnaces. Third, Birds 
550f, 1125: Nephelococcygia is constructed of large baked bricks like Babylon 
and chariots drive along the ramparts in the manner of the Herodotean Babylon 
(1.179). Is this just an architectural fantasy, perhaps fuelled by Herodotus? 
Perhaps so, since for the most part Nephelococcygia is really a "Greek" city, 
exposed to the attentions of Athenian imperialism like any other. But if Babyloni- 
ans can be an analogy for Athenian subjects then so can Nephelococcygia- 
Babylon. Once again, though, the analogy is not perfectly maintained since in 
833 the cock ("the Persian bird, the most terrible chick of war") is assigned to the 

city as its polioukhos theos and despotes. 20 It is as though the new city is not only 
a potential victim of Athenian imperialism but also an imperial colonial foundati- 
on under the aegis of the Persian / Athenian empire. What these passages show is 
that the Persian Empire is available as a means of making points about Athens - 
but also that to achieve this no very profound knowledge of anything oriental is 
actually required. 

Various Old Comedy titles attract one's attention first. 21 Of Chionides' Persi- 
ans no fragments survive. Strattis Zopyros Perikaiomenos produces two frag- 
ments which cast no light upon its Persian-named eponym, though Epicrates is 
named, so the chronological horizon is arguably Corinthian War; and Theopom- 
pus Medos includes a passage (30 K = 31 KA) about Callistratus and Rhada- 
manthus which is conventionally supposed to have something to do with the 
Athenian Confederacy's activities in the 370s. (Theopompus is an author who 
seriously breaches the conventional chronological divide between Old and Midd- 
le Comedy.) Metagenes Thouriopersai 6 K = 6 KA gives an extravagant descrip- 
tion of the culinary delights of the waters of the Sybaris and Crathis; the title 
presumably assimilates southern Italian luxuries with those of the orient and once 
again suggests an analogy between Athens (founder of Thurii) and the Persians. 
(The reference to dancing horses in fr.7 suggests to Kassel & Austin that there 
was a chorus of Persian-dressed horsemen, but this is by no means a necessary 
inference.) Pherecrates Persians - dated by Edmonds between 431 (?) and 422 
(?), though some consider that revelation of aporrheta in fr. 133 K = 140 KA 
refers to the Mysteries scandal of 415 - speaks in frr.128-129 K = 134-5 KA of 
golden navel-cups and of argurides, while fr.130 K = 137 KA describes an 
imagined life of ease and plenty - there is a fountain of Ploutos producing black 
zomos and Achilleian barley; no need for ploughmen or harness-makers or other 
artisans; it will rain wine; grapes will grow spontaneously from houses; trees 
grow not fruit but roast kid or thrushes or fish. This too might be part of a fantasy 
satirizing Athens* pseudo-Persian imperial ambitions. 

Much the most intriguing item is Eupolis Marikas. The fragments contain a 
scatter of Persian material. 192 K = 207 KA, perseptolis Marikas, is a parody of 
Aeschylus Persae 62, while a fragmentary papyrus commentary refers to Persas 
and perhaps to darics (95.38,44 Austin = 192 KA). But the interesting thing is the 
name Marikas. Cassio 1985 persuasively drew attention the possible derivation 
from OP marika, a word meaning "young man" (with perhaps an overtone ot 
"warrior") which is encountered in an address to the reader at the end ot the 
second of Darius' tomb inscriptions (DNb). This calls upon him to reveal what 
kind of man he is and exhorts him to listen to what is spoken openly, not to pay 
attention only to the strong and not to be selfish or idle. The exact purport of this 
is perhaps obscure (though it sounds akin to the ideas of ^ en : h ^ d t n ^ s ^ 
between strong and weak which appear in the first tomb inscription), but it was 

20 On Persian birds cf.Tuplin 1992, and above p.l08n.93. CO nFirma- 

21 Daumas 1985: 290 supposes Magnes' Lydians was about Persia, but there is no contirma 
tory evidence. 




Chapter 3. The Place of Persia in Athenian Literature 



clearly an important ideological topos for it got incorporated in the version of the 
Behistun inscription which was circulated throughout the empire and which is 
preserved in Aramaic at Elephantine (Sims- Williams 1981; Hinz 1988). Unfortu- 
nately in that version marika does not appear, since the context of incorporation 
turns the addressee into a future Great King, so we cannot affirm that the word 
marika reached Greek consciousness precisely through this route. But we are at 
liberty to imagine that other ideologically charged texts besides Behistun (or 
altered versions of Behistun) circulated westwards and the term marika may in 
any case have been familiar in other contexts now lost. It will certainly follow, as 
Cassio spells out, that Hyperbolus was being presented as a subordinate of the 
Persian King, to whom therefore the Athenian demos was being assimilated. 
Moreover he was not being made a slavish subordinate: although both marika and 
bandaka - the common term for subordinate in the Behistun text and one with a 
sense something like "bondsman" - are rendered in Akkadian with the word 
qallu y commonly translated slave or servant, there seems little doubt that marika 
has less of an overtone of subjection. 22 Cassio's further suggestion that Marikas 
was called the "ear of Midas", meaning by that a (King's Eye-like) spy for the 
King = Demos, will be consistent with this. 

One's thoughts naturally turn in this context to Knights, a play with a 
persistent subtext of Persian parallels. 
1. Cleon probably becomes Paphlagon because the contemporary great eunuch 

and eminence grise of the Achaemenid empire was Artoxares the Paphlago- 





Paphlagon shooes away orators with a leather thong (byrsine: 59). Is this a 
hint at the oriental fly-whisks? 

A possible reaction to the current state of things is to commit suicide like 
Themistocles (84): this equates Demos with the Great King. Later on Paphla- 
gon claims to be a greater benefactor than Themistocles (810), which - given 
his eventual medism - is nicely two-edged - though the reference in this 
context to Themistocles' exile (rather than suicide) perhaps imposes a more 
purely Athenian perspective. In due course the sausage-seller gives Demos a 
chiton and Demos responds that this is better than anything Themistocles 
thought of, even Peiraieus - again a purely Athenian perspective. 
Various things to do with birds catch one's attention. Paphlagon is bursaie- 
tos, the "leather eagle" (197ff); and a version of the "eagle in the clouds" 
oracle about Athens (ct Knights 1013, Birds 91%, Daitaleis 230 K = 241 KA) 
is produced by Cleon at 1086f in association with a prophecy about hearing 
law cases in Ecbatana and ruling the Red Sea. Both passages may hint at the 
Persian royal eagle (cf. p.52 n.116 above). Paphlagon fed Demos on garlic 
(967) - which is apparently what you do with fighting birds, i.e. cocks, the 
other "Persian bird". 
5. Demos is going to have a purple, bejewelled cloak and ride in a golden 
chariot - surely like the Great King. 

22 The Elamite rendering of marika is maulla = "child". 

23 Lewis 1977: 20; Ctes. 688 F 14 (42,43), 15 (50,51,54) 

f A 

C. Comedy 


6. In short, when we hear about Demos as a tyrant ruling over mankind (1111) 
and even as monarch and basileus (1329), we may wonder whether an 
oriental Persian tyrant/monarch is in question - even though (or more pi- 
quantly because) in the latter passage Demos is to be restored as he was in the 
era of Aristides and Miltiades. Admittedly in e.g. 448f, 1044 there is implicit 
assimilation of Demos - in the time of Paphlagon' s supremacy - with Greek 
tyrants, Hippias or Antileon. But we are not necessarily looking for consi- 
stency in this area from Aristophanes. 24 

It thus appears that Persia is available as a critical analogy both for Athenian 
international power and for the internal political system. Not that the analogy has 
to be used: it is for example absent in those passages of Wasps where there is talk 
of the power of Athens or of the jurymen, esp. the agon-scene in 548-759, in 
which the juror is assimilated to basileus and to Zeus but without Persian King 
overtones. 25 The reason may be that the juryman is going to turn out to be the 
victimized dupe of corrupt republican politicians and must therefore not be too 
harshly characterized. 

From these possible exploitations of Persia as a way of commenting on 
Athenian politics we may move back to other more specific references to things 

Various historical or quasi-historical events turn up. Cratinus Pylaea 176 K = 
187 KA uses the proverb "the balance of Zopyrus" (applied to those who will put 
up with fearsome things in order to gain wealth) which presumably derived from 
the story of Zopyrus' capture of Babylon known from Herodotus 3. 15 Iff. lnere 
is also past Persian history to the extent that the Persian Wars are frequently 
evoked: I shall not go through all the texts, but merely observe that the Persians- 
as-archers appear (Wasps 1084) and that there is a ^huge P^ponderance of 
reference to Marathon * - a preponderance perhaps reflected in the invention of 

24 Something similar may apply to Eupolis Demes where Pisistratus «« *«£» <»££ "™ 
KA) but there is also a reference to the garment called Krenkon said to belong to the Kmg 

25 Note'g. that "you rule over cities from Pontus to Sardinia" ^ J*"^*^ 
reproduce the Persian formulary about the extent of the in wh.chtwopa.rsofterm.rn 

26 a;^on P iZ. 1078: when the barbarian came -^£^££2 
air full of arrows, -d P-ue d^em 1^ = ^^ 

victory at Marathon to punish those who upset h.m; ^f^X^U^o^g^ 
who left to us the property at Marathon"; Achamians « ■ ^™J™£ JJ^ b ^ were 
(and haters of peace)' ibid. 694ff: complaint about ^J^J^ed by andres 
andres agathoi) at Marathon and V^J*"^* ^ s "gammon is the battle 
poneroi; Knights 780f: Demos fought at Marathon ^~^ DemosisKStoredto 
which gave speakers the chance »«f ** '^SSU J Worthy of the Marathon trophy; 
times of Aristides and Miltiades and is King of Gree * s *" ' b Unjust Argument, 

Cloud,**: the old education, associated ^wjth grasshopper brooches^ J ^^ rf 
is what produced the Marathonomachoi; W r/ . d j rand largesse and 

politicians pinching all the tribute moneys the Athenians com 


Chapter 3. The Place of Persia in Athenian Literature 



a story about Datis visiting Athens as an ambassador and expressing approval of 
the Athenian politeia (Molitor 1986). Ecclesiazousae 601 reflects Persian gold 
flooding the Greek world when it says that those without land are rich in silver 
and in darics. The Tigranes mentioned in Eupolis' Baptai and the negotiations 
with Pharnaces in Birds 1022 may hint at some actual contemporary events; and 
there is doubtless some sort of real background to the Athenian embassy to Persia 
in Acharnians 6 Iff (though it is unclear why the archonship of Euthymemes [437/ 
6] in particular is specified) and the idea in Aristophanes Acharnians 647 of the 
King cross-examining Spartan emissaries. In the long run the Persians were 
beneficiaries of the Peloponnesian War and this is already reflected before the 
event in Peace and LysistrataP A more general sense of the Persians as the 
traditional enemy appears in several passages: particularly notable is Wasps lOf: 
"the Mede is assaulting my eyes" (i.e. I am falling asleep on duty) presupposes 
the Mede as the stereotypical (proverbial) enemy, and the passage introduces a 
joke about a dream about an eagle (and Cleonymus' shield) which among other 
things probably trades on the eagle's status as Persian royal symbol (cf. p.52). 28 
Nor is this the only bird-text: for, although Birds 278 indicates that Medes 
should arrive on camels, and Knights 606 refers to Median grass = lucerne 
(alfalfa) as the proper food for horses, there is no doubt that the prominent 
Persian animals in Old Comedy are birds. We have already noted some other 
passages about eagles in Knights. But there is also the question of the farmyard 

live in a fashion worthy of the Marathon trophy; Birds 246: Hoopoe summons birds of the 
meadows of Marathon; Thesm.%06: Aristomache in Marathon conjures up image of the old 
values of the state now lost; Frogs 1296: Marathon - possible source of incomprehensible 
word; Lysist.285: the old men feel unworthy of trophy in the tetrapolis if they are outdone 
by women; Lysist.\032: Tricorysian gnat - this effectively associates the chorus men with 
the Marathon values (as per 285) at the moment at which they are being outwitted by 
women; P.Oxy. 2737 (? Anagyros) fr. 2.87. 

(2) Artemision. an Athenian achievement celebrated in Spartan song. (3) 
Thermopylae. ibid,1247f: a Spartan achievement celebrated in Spartan song; Birds 1260: 
enemy as numerous as grains of sand at Thermopylae. (4) Salamis. Knights 780f: Demos 
fought at Salamis and Marathon; Acharnians 162: thranites leos sosipolis (the passage also 
mentions Marathon); Lysist.675: ref. to Artemisia as fighter on ships, whom the women 
may emulate: this must essentially be a Salamis recollection. (A slightly special case is 
Plato 183 K = 199 KA on Themistocles* tomb, which overlooks incomers and outgoers and 
looks on whenever there is a contest of ships (meaning races no doubt, but with a nice 
overtone of battle).) 

(5) Plataea. Ameipsias Sphendone 17 K = 16 KA: reference to someone throwing away 
spear and shield at Plataea. (Edmonds supposes a connection with Plataea in 427.) 

(6) Aftermath. Lvj.653: squandering grandfathers' eranos from Medika; Wasps 1078f: 
Athenians overthrew the enemy sailing thither with ships; captured many Median cities. 
Peace 108: prosecute Zeus for betraying Greece to the Medes. The idea that war in Greece 
offers Persians opportunities for exploitation recurs in Peace 405f (Sun and Moon want to 
betray Greece to barbarians) and Lysistrata 1 133 (the Greeks fight one another while the 
barbarians are present with an army). 

Other "Persians as enemies" passages are Thesmo337 (reference to mention of Mede in 
assembly oath) and Knights 478 (Paphlagon threatens to accuse enemies of conspiracy with 
Medes and King). 



C. Comedy 


cock. Cratinus Horai 259 K = 279 KA speaks of the holophonos Persian cock 
which crows at all hours, Birds 480f says Persia was once ruled by the cock and 
Birds 833 envisages the Persian bird as theos polioukhos or despotes of Nephelo- 
coccygia. The "tawny horse-cock" (xouthos hippalektryon) in Peace 1174 also 
deserves mention in view of the association in Frogs 938 between the hippalektryon 
and Median tapestries, and in the light of the fact that it combines two Persian 
animals (horse and cock). A different combination appears in Eupolis Astrateutoi 
36 K = 41 KA "lest I should keep at Persephone's a peacock which awakens the 
sleeping" The peacock had been known in Athens since the 440s, when Pyrilam- 
pes brought some home as a gift from Artaxerxes and put them on show once a 
month, creating an interest which gave them a potential value of 1000 drachmae a 
pair- 29 hence Acharnians 61ff where Dicaeopolis responds to talk of Persian 
ambassadors by saying "I'm fed up of ambassadors and peacocks and alazoneu- 
matcT. And it is the amalgam of these avian associations which moved Aristo- 
phanes (and his costume designer) to invent the fabulous Median bird in Birds 


A variety of institutional or quasi-institutional features of the Achaemenid 
system are mentioned or implied, the fly-whisk (Knights 59), eunuchs K^™- 
ans 61ff), the upright kurbasia as a sign of royalty (Birds 48Qf).» the King s Eye 
(AcLLs 61 P ff) g a good quality road system (Acharnians 68). ' &£"*»« 
the word being used metaphorically for people who let , fcemseWes be tramp led 
on), the mounting of military expeditions to collect gold ^m Northern India (ct 
n45) 32 In Peace 405f Trygaeus knows that Persians sacrifice to the Sun ana 
Moon (so to" : Herodotus U31), but also assumes that Persian conquest entai s 
everyone following Persian religious practice. It is hard to know whether^ 
passlge testifies to genuine Athenian misapprehensions ?™\i™™^™Z 
or is simply dictated by the logic of a joke. The status of the P^ian dance m 
Thesmophoriazousai 1175 is debatable. The scholiast identifies it with the so 

29«.158A, Antiph. En*!*. (Athen.397C), <^*^£%£££. 
dy mentioned in Simonid. 8 F 4 - if this is a genuine fragment, which ^^ ^ 
com. adesp.111 mentions the Median peacock as an exoU ^ f C J a < 1 bmed 
Comedy, not necessarily correctly (it is a passage from Clement with a compos 
things presumably derived from the Attic comedy trad'Uon^. .^^ 

In kx.Triphales 546 K = 559 KA it is implicitly tripartite, ^wearer ^ 
it is right to guess that the play as a whole -as<™cerne ^2 or de "y this. 

will say that my hat is a **«£- ^^S^h^nsihle, but is largely 
Comparison to a cock's comb (B.r^ 481) is vaguely vis y y ^ Darius 

dictated by the cock being the "Persian bird (on ^ff^^e **<*** comb, but 

hat quite different in shape from the kurbasia) ambassadors' journey to the 

As Long 1986: 12 observes the joke about the hardship 

King panly depends on knowledge that ^^^^Zp^ by Kassel-Austin 

A reference to the Kardakes (a military unit) ascribea to 

(105 K-A) is much more likely to belong to the historian. 








Chapter 3. The Place of Persia in Athenian Literature 



HI- J 

called oklasma, of which there are several artistic representations from the period 
c.450-300. 33 But there is no necessity to equate it with the Persikon which Duris 
76F5 said was danced by the Great King at the festival of Mithras and no clear 
reason to regard it as genuinely Persian, as distinct from Anatolian / barbarian. (It 
was a Mysian who danced it at a party in Paphlagonia reported in Xenophon 
Anabasis 6.1.9f.) "Persian" here may therefore only mean "first or often encoun- 
tered within the Persian empire" and its salient feature in context is not ethnic 
origin but the sexual allure achieved when it is performed by a naked woman 
rather than an orientally clad warrior or votary. (There is incidentally no way of 
knowing if the pederasty mentioned in Theopompus' Medos 29 K = 30 KA is 
engaged in by Persians.) Uncertainty of a different sort surrounds Plato 220 K = 
239 KA which says that men who have been away for three months do not 
recognize the city; they return like those walking at night beside the walls in the 
manner of angaroi. The cause of the changes was the effect of oratory upon the 
city's laws. Angaroi are Persian imperial messengers; but why they should be 
beside the walls at night is obscure. 34 In New Comedy angaros had acquired an 
overtone of slavish stupidity; perhaps this is already relevant here. (Edmonds 
thinks there's a reference to the rebuilt Long Walls, and attributes the fragment 
tentatively to Presbeis.) Crates Tolmai 33 K = 37 KA describes someone who is 
an episitios looking after sheep as shivering "in the [house of] Megabyzus" {en 
Megabyzou) and receiving corn as pay. Whether or not this Megabyzus is the 
reconqueror of Egypt (Thucydides 1 . 109, Ctesias 688 F 14 [37]), the passage may 
imply knowledge of Persian procedures for payment-in-kind. Similarly the taunt 
of the vegetable-seller in Wasps 498f ("so you want a leek! Is this to set up a 
tyranny or do you think Athens should pay you relishes as tribute?") has been 
thought to hint at the Persian system of assigning the tax income of a locality to 
supply a particular commodity (Davidson 1993: 99). 35 Finally there is Acharni- 
ans 91, where the name Pseudartabas may be based on artaba, a Persian measure 
of weight, or connected with *Rta-banu = "the Light of Just Order", but either 
way suggests, thanks to the clearly deliberate contrast with pseudos, that Aristo- 
phanes had some grasp of Iranian vocabulary. This will be doubly obvious for 




Schweitzer 1936: 291f. Pollux 4.100 agrees that Thesmophoriazousae refers to the oklasma. 
Heliod.4.17 calls the same dance "Assyrian". The dancers on the various representations 
(including a figure of Paris in Polygnotus' Nekyia) always (with a few relatively early 
exceptions) wear "oriental" costume. There is apparently no suggestion of importation of 
the dance into Greek social custom. For illustrations see Daumas 1985, pl.III 3-4 (BM E 
695 and a gem in Boardman 1975: no.88). The former is said to be a Sabazios ritual. 
Herrenschmidt 1993 identifies the Iranian original of angaros as *ham/a-gar-a, "one who 
stays awake". Can Plato possibly have been aware of this? Or is he merely reflecting a more 
general perception of the post-system as one operating night and day (cf. Hdt.8.98) - like 
the angaros beacon of A.Ag.282f? Shrimpton 1993: 78 offers a different explanation of 
angaros as a Persian mispronounciation of angelos. (Vickers 1989: 268, on the other hand, 
claims that pseudangelesein hangelos in AtAv. 1340 would have been heard by the audien- 
ce as an Alcibiadean lambdacizing pronounciation of pseudangares ein' angaros,) 
But see n.60. 



C. Comedy 


those who accept that line 100 conceals a genuine Old Persian sentence 36 though 
whatever the truth about that the most Aristophanes can reasonably have ex- 
pected of his audience is recognition that it "sounded Persian" - just as the 
mangled Greek in 104 presumably reproduced Persian (and perhaps not distinc- 
tively Persian) attempts to speak the language. 37 

One expects Persians to be the models of refined and luxurious life-style. But 
there is less of this than one might expect. So far as clothing and personal 
appearance are concerned we have Pseudartabas' sakkos in Acharnians 6 Iff (not 
a distinctively Persian term or object, of course), red trousers in Wasps 1087, 38 
the shoes known as Persikai in various passages (worn by Athenian women or 
children, and presumably a "naturalized" item), 39 and a Persian walking-stick, 
none of which are ostentatiously grand, even if the stick is (unlike a Spartan one) 
straight. 40 The context of Aristophanes' reference (519 K = 532 KA) to the 
kypassis (Persian according to Hecataeus 1 F 284) is unknown. 41 Only Wasps 
113 If on Philocleon's kaunakes arguably suggests a certain pretentiousness of 
dress - though one apparently not inconsistent with adoption by young Atheni- 
ans. 42 (Admittedly one cannot now know the visual effect of Pseudartabas 
clothing or of whatever oriental styles the ambassadors had adopted (cf. Dicaeo- 
polis' "By Ecbatana, what a get up" [64]) - or for that matter how accurately 
Persian dress was reproduced.) 

A similar situation arises with passages about food. We have noted the 
possible implications of Metagenes Thouriopersai, and Dios enkephalos which 
appears in a list of desserts in Ephippus 13 K = 13 KA, is alleged by Clearchus 

36 See Naber 1888: 91; Friedrieh 1921: 93f; Waekernagel 1921: 224; «^«"£ : J™ 
Dover 1963: 7-9; West 1968: 5-7; Brandenstein 1964; Schmitt 1984: 470f, Francs 1992. 

37 lie "Eurymedon" vase (Schauenburg 1975), on which a '^^'^^^Z 
"I am Eurymedon" may represent a eomedy seene part of the pomt of .s that the 
foreign speaker uses the "wrong" euru- compound. , rnll c ers on the 

38 Red is inferred because tunny egg sacks are that colour, as are many trousers 
Alexander sarcophagus (Daumas 1985: 296). ■„„ ,„ „, nma irt Nub 151, 

39 Thesmo J34 (baby); Eccl.3 19 (Persikai and yellow ^W^^^^SS 
,y,229. They seem a q uite norm a, ^J^ . ^Z^Z^Z^ 
151 implies they were rather high (and Poll »x 7.92 cal «> me ^ an(J 
sometimes wore Lakonikai (JhesmoMl, Vesp. 1131t. tccut, «, >, 

heavier than ordinary shoes (cf. £ec/.544, with Ussher s no e 

40 Arist.O/^* .26 k - 141 KA. ™^^ZT> SS^L. given its 

41 Long ,986: 85 envisages the : posstbt. £*J^^ ^ unlikely> .. 
appearance in B-S, where a oaro-uian v, opnzev 1887), whose name 

42 Schmitt 1984: 462f. The garment ("une etoffe a longs P°' ls • H « uzey d ^ „ reflecte d 
occurs in LB as gunakku, Pali as gonala and ^T^^n^Si^ and hot, .ike 
in Chinese huna (- Persian textile), is woven in ^^^XLg whole cows in 
being in an oven. In the light of this ""P""" T^^Si^iSesi a connec,ion 
ovens (see next „.). it is piquant that at one •""^J^S^^.-T^g-rment 
between g a «« a te and Indo-Iranian words for cow (PryzuisKi . ^^ 

which (cf. Hesych. s.v.) could *o™£^ £ ° aunaka! ... porphyrons epi 
Arr.Anab.6.29.5) also appeared m Menander OPo L* cheimastron]) . 

stromaton; id. 10.123 [mentioned alongside winter sisyra 













Chapter 3. The Place of Persia in Athenian Literature 

C. Comedy 


51 W to be a proverbial expression for choice foodstuffs among the Persians 
(though I strongly suspect Clearchus of being the first to make the Persian 
connection). Otherwise, though, the stress is on heavy eating and drinking, not on 
gourmet discrimination; 43 wealth apparently means Persian have more to eat not 
that they devise culinary refinements. And more generally, although Frogs 938 
speaks of embroidered Median tapestries, 44 much of the relevant material is 
concentrated in single passage, Acharnians 6 Iff, where the king sits on golden 
mountains to defecate (cf. more politely Plutus 170: the Great King prides 
himself on account of his wealth), 45 one travels "softly" (malthakos) in a harma- 
maxa and drinks from glass and golden drinking vessels - things which recur in 
Plato's Ambassadors, once (1 19 K = 127 KA) as the gifts which Phormisius and 
Epicrates received on an embassy to the King (golden oxybapha and silver 
pinakiskoi), 46 and then in 120-121 K = 128-9 KA in references to people stealing 
and auctioning kuathoi or skeuaria. Another fragment of the same play (126 K = 
134 KA) says that the people who regulated eis to eu zen were called harmosteres. 
In the light of still another fragment about Spartan poverty of dress it seems clear 
that some sort of joke about the Sparta-Persia contrast is involved in using this 
redefinition of the Spartan word for military governor as a way of stressing that 
Persian society is organised for pleasure. 

Turning from Old to Middle Comedy we find a much more modest haul of 

One reason is that the passage of time renders some things less significant 
than they once were. Such references as there are to cocks say nothing about 
Persian connection; and as for the peacock, Antiphanes Homopatrioi 175 K = 173 
KA mentions "that golden bird", the beautiful and famed peacocks (of Hera at 
Samos), in a list of "typical" birds also including the phoenix at Helioupolis, owls 

43 Acharn. 85: roast ox - Persians admire big eaters. Demetr.tfc elocut. 1 26 ( = 
quotes "they shit whole plains'* and "they carry oxen in their cheeks" as comic comments on 
Persians, though the latter is later (ibid. 161 ) said of the Thracian Medoces. Ac/wrn.75:drinking 
unmixed wine (a barbarian habit). Theopompus Theseus 17 K = 18 KA: Median land where 
they make lots of salads, including a bitter one (aburtake) said by commentators to be used 
as a laxative. - The tendency to stress size, not quality, may be connected with the repeated 
stress on the size of the Persian army of 480/79: for Athenians of the war generation and 
their descendants the Persian empire was somewhere where things were big (cf. the length 
of time it took to get its centre, explained in Hdt. 5.5 If, and the subject of humour in 
Acharnians 6 Iff.) Persepolis stairway reliefs show whole animals being carried in (ar- 
guably for feasting), but it would be optimistic to see Aristophanes' joke as a misrepresen- 
tation of this iconography. 

44 Royal myrrh (Crates 2 K = 2 KA) need not be Persian (Sappho 94. 19f already mentions it). 
So too basilike mindax in Amphis 27 K = 27 KA. 

45 Cassio 1991 argues persuasively that this is related to the sort of story found in Ctes.688 F 
45 about military expeditions to steal gold from the griffins in the mountains of NW India. 
Epicrates* joke (?\ul.Pelop30) about sending poor Athenians as ambassadors to Persia is 
presumably from comedy, not something actually said in an Athenian court (pace Kirchner 
1901/03: s.v.), let alone the means of getting a case laughed out of court (cf. Long 1986: 98, 
though he speaks of the assembly as the venue). (He had once been acquitted of bribery, 
Lys.27.4.) Athen.251AB expresses surprise that the Athenians did not prosecute Epicrates. 


of Athens and doves of Cyprus, while the same author's Stratiotes 205 K = 203 
KA says that to have a pair of peacocks was once remarkable but they have now 
become more commonplace than quails. Other peacock references (Eubulus 
Phoinix 1 14 K = 1 13 KA; Anaxilas 24 K = 24 KA, Alexis 1 10 K = 1 15 KA) have 
no specifically Persian overtones. 

Reported titles have little to offer. Nausicrates wrote a Persis, which might 
signify Persian Woman or even refer to the country - unless it is the Greek word 
for "destruction". (The one surviving fragment [2 K-A = 3 K] speaks of the non- 
existence of lions in Attica. To connect this with Persian royal lion-hunts would 
be over-speculative.) Alexis did a Dropides, which was the name of an ambassa- 
dor sent to Darius III known from Arrian 3.24. There is no reason to suppose that 
Timocles' Marathonian had anything particular to do with the Persian Wars or 
that Eubulus' and Antiphanes' Medea and Antiphanes' Andromeda made anything 
out of the supposed connection of Medea and Perseus with Media and Persia 

We are left with a small number of specific, but not provably more than 

passing, references. , 

Ephippus Geryones 5 K = 5 KA: "when the inhabitants of that country catch 

an unusually big fish the size of wave-girt Crete, he has a huge dish, big enough 

to take a hundred of them. They say the perioikoi are Sintians, Lycians, Mygdoni- 

ans, Cranaans and Paphians. The king, when he boils the fish, tells these .people to 

cut lots of wood, set it alight, to bring along a lake for the brine (PjeUm^ 

cartloads of salt (it takes eight months). Five five-tholed cutters (? quinqueremes) 

sail round the edges. He issues orders to Lycia's prytanis to apply *™J^ 

Macedon's arkhon to stop heating and to Celt to put his fe^Jjte 

Whittering such things he dines and lives adrmred with young 1-J^^^ 

the numbers of pebbles, proudly trailing his cloak" The import of these 1 nes 

(which were recycled in Peltastes [Athenaeus 347B]) is °^ ™ ™ 

Peltastes had occasion to mention Menecrates who pretended ^^yZ 

and Nicostratus who pretended that he was Heracles, and ™£^^£j 

role in the war for Egypt, one may suspect that the peltast of ^^^ 

plot connection with the orient as a mercenary. The passage ^^f^ 

therefore be part of someone's fantastical description ^jf^^f^S 

employer. It is making the same sort of point as Anstoph^es talk ^"™ 

cows baked in ovens, but with very much more exaggeration A ^ -s 

outbidding of Aristophanes occurs in Antiphanes O^onu^^P^m^ 

170 KA where we are told that cooks roast a whole camel for ^^™ |Ifl . 

the luxurious life-style (rather than mere grossness) ^^^^h^fy 

sozomenoi 1 K = 1 KA, where a returning ^^^^^^^ 

(Asiatic drinking cup), cooler and jug as well as a i ^^^^ where 

Persians and Persian griffins, and * f^^ various kinds of 


lans and Persian grinins, anu m ™^- ctrfimat d\ various kinds ot 

S .„ap-rich" Maroon pj-j-W - "j^^,,, solid goU 
cupor vessel °W'°r^^^^id°s), supervisors (epirropoO 
gauloi - not all intrinsically Persian swe yy « Pers jan" clothes turn up but 
pack animals and camels, and plenty of talents. pe0 ple all dressed 

rarely: Antiphanes' Scythians or Taurians 201 K = w ** 



Chapter 3. The Place of Persia in Athenian Literature 




in chitons and sarabara (variously identified as trousers or a form of hat: Knauer 
1954). But in the same author's Anteia 36 K = 38 KA the stolai, skeleai and tiaras 
perhaps refer to a tragic chorus. 47 

In Antiphanes Boeotian Girl 58 K = 59 KA someone offers a maiden some 
mela. "Splendid indeed", she says. "Splendid! This seed recently arrived in 
Athens from the King." "I thought you were going to say these golden apples 
came from the Hesperides, by the Evening Star, since there are only three". 
"What is good is always rare and expensive". This presumably reflects knowled- 
ge of the Persian king's interest in agriculture (recall Xenophon's Oeconomicus) 
and / or the idea found in e.g. the eulogy of Cyrus in Anabasis 1.9 or Heraclides' 
account of food-payment (689 F 2) that foodstuffs were among the type of things 
that Persian Kings customarily used as gift-objects. Citrus fruits were certainly 
rarities in Greece. Whether they were in the east, I am not clear, though it would 
make them a more natural special gift if they were. There is a possible further 
overtone, viz. Persian financial bribery of Greeks. 48 

A political context might also be conjured up by a final item, Epicrates Lais 3 
K = 3 KA. Lais is like an eagle - when young they steal lambs and hares but when 
they are old they sit on temple rooves inactive and serve as portents. Similarly 
when Lais was young she was made wild by staters. You would have found it 
easier to see Pharnabazus than to see her. But now she is old she will take as little 
as three obols from anyone and she's very tame. The difficulty of seeing a satrap 
calls to mind Callicratidas and Cyrus (Xenophon Hellenica 1.6.6f); but the point 
may be less specific, simply that Persian grandees (as micro-examples of the 
King himself) live surrounded by a grand court. The effect of the simile is 
certainly to suggest that Lais suffered from the wealth and hauteur of Persian, and 
in that context it is perhaps significant that the primary simile is a comparison 
with the eagle, which Greeks at least thought to be a Persian royal bird (cf. p.52). 



New Comedy material on Persian things largely belongs in the area of clothing and eating. 
100 foot wide "barbarian parapetasma": Men.£>y*c.923 (something theoretically findable 
in a rich Athenian's house). Fly-whisk (at a dinner party): Anaxipp. 7 K = 7 KA, 
Philemon 87 K = 90 KA mentions the sannakra (Persian cup: Athen.497E) as well as 
hippotragelaphia and batiakia. Persian stolai, purple coverings, various cups, 
including labronia (Persian according to Athen.484C, 500E) and tragelaphoi - and Cyinda 
gold (so we are definitely in the post-Alexander era). Diphil.40 K = 39 KA, 
Sand., Sicyon3U mention the kandytalis or kandytanes, allegedly a species of box or 
knapsack made fashionable by Macedonians, but (Pollux 10.137) with a Persian name (cf. 
kandys). AelNA 17.17 says kandytanes were giant mice whose skins were used to make 
Persian cloaks (presumably this derives ultimately from a comedy joke?) For the kaunakes 
cf. n. 42. Worship of sun above all gods: Satraps are mentioned in Men.Kolax 
40, 90 and fr.668 (at this date not necessarily or probably Persian satraps), and the angaros 
in Men.frr.349,353 where it has apparently acquired an overtone of slavish stupidity. I do 
not understand Long's certainty (1986: 1 1 1) that the title of Posidippus' Epistathmos refers 
to a Persian governor, for all that the surviving fragment is a list of things proper to an army 
baggage train. 

Edmonds characteristically is sure of this and (cf. the play's title) assumes a connection 
with the diplomatic events of 367 - clearly not cogent. One may also recall the fragment of 
Antiphanes' Sappho (196 K = 194 KA) about Greek politicians who derive income from 
Thrace or Asia. 


, L 

D. Orators and Philosophers 



If the evidence of Middle Comedy suggests a certain recession of interest in 
Persia in fourth century Athens, the same phenomenon is less on show in the 
fourth century rhetorical and philosophical productions which predominate in the 
corpus of classical Athenian prose writing, and something of the process of self- 
definition through contrast to which I referred earlier can still be discerned. For 
example, Persia and Greece can be treated as symbolic geographical opposites: 
the principle that just things are considered just and unjust things considered 
unjust applies among the Persians as well as among Greeks, just as relative 
weights are the same in Carthage, Lycia and here (Plato Minos 316A); fire burns 
both in Greece and Persia, though ideas of justice change (Aristotle NE 5.7.2 
(1134b)). Plato Lysis 209D is also relevant: the Great King would prefer to let 
professional cooks assemble his son's broth (zomos) rather than let his son do it 
himself- and, so long as he trusted their judgment, would continue to let them do 
it even if they threw in salt by the handful. The reference to Persia is clearly 
intended to underline the exhaustive universality of certain principles. 49 The fact 
that Persian and Median kings listen to music for amusement and instruction 
(Aristotle Politics 8.5.5 (1339a)) reflects the same thing in a different context, 
since Aristotle certainly takes it for granted that educated Greeks do the same. 
The underlying implication is, of course, that in most ways Persian customs are 
perceived as very alien (and as Thucydides 1.138 notes Themistocles spent a year 
learning Persian and "the customs of the land"). There is also, of course, a natural 
enmity. 50 Plato Alcibiades 1 20A indicates that for an Athenian political leader the 
Great King and the Spartans are the natural rivals - both in their ways much 
grander than a product of Athenian society - and Menexenus 245C provides an 
explanation: Athenians hate barbarians particularly because they are pure Greeks 
unsullied by barbarian admixtures like Cadmus or Pelops. 

Still the Athenian phenomenon is only a special case of an Hellenic one: the 
common Hellenic hatred towards barbarians and their kings (Isocrates 1Z.UM) - 
one particularly felt for the memory of Xerxes (5.42) - is a natural (phusei) hatred 
between the two nations (12.163). So says Isocrates, in whose works it is a 
common turn of phrase that barbarians, more or less by virtue > of their mere 
existence, "plot" against Greece (Isocrates 4.155, 5.76, 12.102,159,163: cf Plato 
Menexenus 241E): only occasionally is this posited in a specific way as , in 5 103 
(where the victim is the Carian Idrieus). The Persians are simply the latest in a 
line of barbarian enemies of Hellenes (Isocrates 12.42f). In this »P^P^^ 
in Laws 685C that contemporary Greek fear of the Great King is like the fear ot 

The comparison may be partly prompted by the '^^^^X 
context; Persian education is something Plato interests himself indj"J^ ] 

also be something of a joke in associating Persian royal wrth h° W° und ng 
(though it also appears in Pherecrates' Persian fantasy [fr. 130 K - ™ »^ ^ ^ 
Isoc.7.8,10 speak of mutual hatred of Athens and the King. Isoc^ ^ 

eternal Athenian wrath against barbarians (symbolized by the assembly 
natural enmity. 






Chapter 3. The Place of Persia in Athenian Literature 

D. Orators and Philosophers 


the composite organisation" (sustatheia suntaxis) of the Assyrian empire which 
Greeks experienced at the time of the Trojan Wars. And logically enough Plato 
can just like Isocrates, produce passages on the panhellenic theme that only the 
barbarians are suitable enemies for Greeks (Republic 469B) 

Of course the nature of the hatred can be said to have changed. Isocrates 
7.51,80 says that the Persians feared Athens (in the days of Areopagite power) 
but now despise her. This state of affairs essentially arose from what orators 
operating in the real political world would call realism. Compare Demosthenes 
14.3: the king is the common enemy of Greeks (and in extremis Greek mercenari- 
es would not serve the king in a direct attack upon Greece) - but we should not 
gratuitously fight him separately from other Greeks because he will mobilize 
them against us. With the passage of more time Demosthenes (10.34) will urge 
Athenians to abandon cliches about "the common enemy" and "barbarian" and 
accept cooperation with Persians. The prince in Susa or Ecbatana is not as 
fearsome as Philip. One can even go so far as to say that, whereas the Persian king 
used to be mistrusted by all Greeks, he is now a friend to all - and can help defeat 
Hnlip i just as he helped Athens or Sparta to defeat one another. (Philip in his letter 
complains that Athenian willingness to side with Persia contrasts with their 
attitude to Pisistratids.) 

This sense of continuity in change is reflected in a tendency to use "the 
msian King" or the like as a depersonalized description permitting a virtual 
identification of any one Persian king with any other: Isocrates 5.42, 12.157-8 
virtually equates Xerxes and Artaxerxes II, Lysias 2.27 seems to treat Xerxes as 
author of the Marathon invasion, and Aeschin 3.132 says that the king who cut 
Athos bridged Hellespont, demanded earth and water, wrote letters about being 
lord of all from rising to setting sun is now in mortal danger from Alexander. 51 

Passages of this sort go together (at least in orators and Plato's Menexenus) 
with a great deal of historical material. Much of it is pretty unspecific and casts 
little special light upon Athenian knowledge of Persia and the Persians, and it 
does not need to be rehearsed here, though one may note that Marathon is not as 
predominant among references to the Persian Wars as it is in Old Comedy. It is 
characteristic that virtually no Persians other than Kings are ever named: Datis 
(Demosthenes 59.94f), Mardonius (id. 24.129) and Amestris, mother of Artaxer- 
xes I (Plato Alcibiades 123C) are exceptions in the earlier period; Tissaphernes 

s ™TL ? f d CyrUS the Youn S er (Demosthenes 15.24; Isocrates 4.145, 
J.yu, y 58) in the later period. (And Cyrus is rather a special case.) Indeed even 
kings themselves tend to be anonymous in the spirit of the depersonalization to 
which I just referred. It is only in the rather different surrounds of Aristotle's 
Politics that one will find people like the satrap Autophradates or Xerxes' 
murderer Artapanes or the parricide Mithradates (1267a, 131 lb, 1312a). Eccen- 
tric in all respects is Aeschines Socraticus Aspasia XII (Krauss) which tells of 

5 1 mmr n J!" SUit A I 1 * maUer Can bC ViCWed differ «ntly : Isoc.5.99f makes a point of comparing/ 
dZIT S vTT S " and IIX t0 Sh0W that the latter » feeble and easily defeated. - 
S Peth ?993b°600 S anal ° gUeS ' PerhapS dan S erous > in ™°ern synchronic historiography 


Rhodogune, a Persian queen who made the empire great: when news of Armenian 
revolt arrived she immediately stopped doing her hair and did not complete the 
task until the revolt was suppressed, a devotion to duty allegedly commemorated 
in a statue or seal-image showing her with half-completed coiffure. 52 What, if 
anything, she has to do with the Rhodogunai named by Ctesias 688 F 13 (24) and 
Plutarch Artoxerxes 27 as daughters of Xerxes and Artaxerxes II respectively is 
unclear; and if some real iconography lies behind the story it still remains to be 


Few other historical items deserve mention: Isocrates wrote that the elder 
Cyrus was a foundling picked up from beside the road by a Persian woman 
(5.66,132), thus endorsing a non-Herodotean and non-Ctesian version. In Ana- 
lytics 94a36 Aristotle charmingly used the proposition that the sack of Sardis 
caused the Persian Wars to exemplify a point of logic. Plato (Laches 191D) said 
of the crucial encounter at Plataea that the Spartans could not face the Persian 
gerrophoroi until the latter's ranks broke, whereupon Pausanias' men engaged 
them wheeling (anastrephomenoi) like cavalrymen - something of a paradox - 
and won. This is an almost unexampled degree of exactitude about a Persian War 
event - and independently interesting for its clear recognition that hoplites do not 
(only) win by virtue of the compact phalanx. 

Mention of gerrophoroi is a cue to turn to structural or institutional matters. 
Not that our texts cast much light upon Persian war-making. Fourth-century 
Persia's dependence on Greek mercenary troops is assumed in i Plato (Laws 
697E), Isocrates (4.135, 5.126) and Demosthenes (14.3, 320- Demosdienes 
remark in 333 (quoted by Aeschines 3.164) that Alexander was about to be 
trampled down by Persian horse is a casual recognition of the importance of 
oriental cavalry .» Isocrates complains that Persians destroy cities or garrison 
their acropoleis (4.137), refers in 4.149 to the King's stratta WP<M* 
ring army": cf. Aristophanes Achamians 81) and comments on the heterogenou 
nature of royal armies, assembled from (he contends) mutually hostile purees 
(4.165; cf. 141. 162). Otherwise all we can point to is passages in T>lato, Aristo e 
and Isocrates which count the Persians alongside .Scythians » C f ha ^ s ' f^ 
and others among the warlike barbarian races 5 - - not that ^IJ^ 
uninteresting, given one's expectation that Greek sources will deny the Persians 

52 Parado, G r a ec. 215 (8)ci te sAeschi„es; reS 

JeTom.inJovin.lA5 and perhaps JulencEusebll. (i) Ihe nalurc temporarily. The 

Polyaenus says she was in the ^f^^Z^gSZ 3h* "owing 
other two sources say she went into battle with her hair hall pmnea p 
loose, (ii) Philostratus is describing a painting; Polyaenus speaks of a royal 
Paradox. Graec. I.e. says there was «; golden etkon ^^ 

53 Mercenaries and cavalry appear in Thuc.3.34, 8.ZD,//, r Scythians, Persians, 

54 Laws 637D: approval of drunkenness among warid ■ J^S" w ^ (en taxei) 
Carthaginians, Celts, Iberians, Thracians - Persian^ '""ulgence >s m ^ ^y^ ^ 
than in the case of the other peoples named. Poknan. ^ ^ ^.^ ^^ e g 
which are strong enough to conquer others pay -mgn g arkhitmta and have 
Scythians, Persians, Thracians, Celts. Isoc.4.67 Je races 

megistai dynasteiai are Scythians, Thracians and Persians. 



Chapter 3. The Place of Persia in Athenian Literature 


"* 2! 





any claim to manly virtues. 55 (The reason for Isocrates' comment is, of course 
that he is about to praise Athens' defeat of the Persians and the rest.)' 

Civil institutions and value-systems are similarly rarely the subject of speci- 
fic comment. v 

Two Platonic texts seem to show awareness of the Persian esteem for physi- 
cal beauty. According to Charmides 158A, Pyrilampes, when serving as ambas- 
sador to the Great King or other people in the continent of Asia, was thought to be 
very kalos and megas by the natives. Alcibiades 121D reports that when a royal 
child is born the attendants mould the limbs very carefully in order to ensure that 
he is as beautiful as possible; a Persian prince will thus probably be better off than 
an Athenian in, among other things, beauty and stature. 

More mundanely Plato (Laws 695A) speaks of eunuchs as part of the royal 
court, knows that a tributary system (the dasmos) was invented by Darius 56 and is 
aware of his special connection with law-making (cf. also Epistle 332AB, Phae- 
drus 258C) and believes (perhaps in some sense correctly) in the existence of a 
long obsolete division of the empire into seven sections. 57 His reference to the 
usurper killed by Darius as "the one who was then called eunuch" has been 
thought to show that he had the (aramaic) title saris, derived from akkadian sa res 
[sarri], a term which may mean eunuch. Whether, even if this is right, Plato was 
conscious of the fact is debatable, 58 and it is perhaps just as likely that this variant 
on the Behistun story is directly informed by the view characteristic of Ctesias 
that the Pesian court regularly harboured dominant eunuchs. Satraps are mentio- 
ned occasionally (Isocrates 4.152, 5.104), once with a gloss ("those whom they 
call satraps": id.4.152), as though the term were unfamiliar (and indeed it is rarely 
attested in Greek until the fourth century). There are two Aristotelian passages 
which might be seen as references to the King's Eye - if indeed such a personage 
existed outside the imaginations of Greeks. Aristotle Politics 3.16.12 (1287b) 
says the king uses his philoi as ears, hands, feet; and Oeconomica 1344b35 
observes that in the Persian oikonomia the master supervises everything - hence 

The need to reconcile Persian luxury with the desire for Persians to have been worthy 
opponents (and with the increasing adoption of luxurious habits by Greeks) produces a 
remarkable result in Heraclides Ponticus On Pleasure fr.55 which argues that luxury is a 
sign of freedom (from subsistence labour) and the most luxurious barbarians (Persians and 
Medes) were the bravest and most lordly (me galop sykhotatoi). Moreover, the Athenians did 
their best deeds when they too had luxurious habits and wore the old-style clothing of the 
Marathon-fighting generation (cf. Thuc.1.6; te.Nub. 983). On the Heraclides passage see 
Bnant 1989:44, Bosworth 1994:16. 

Other references to tribute: e.g. Isoc.5.104. Other fiscal matters - e.g. fief-allocation or 
assignment of revenue to individuals - leave little trace. (Ps.-Andoc.4.30f might be an 
indirect example. See below p. 170.). 

For the idea cf. £p.332B. Calmeyer 1987: 133-40 claims seven divisions are discernible in 
tne peoples list in DB (and not in other such lists), and apparently thinks Plato could have 
Known of the phenomenon through an middle-Achaemenid aramaic intermediary source. I 
am notclear why Plato speaks so metaphorically - "of which only small dreams now 
remain - to express the obsolescence of the seven-part division. 

it™ l* 4 ^ For L varl ° u * views on Sa res ^ eunuchs cf.Brinkmann 1968: 309f; Postgate 
1973: 10; Oppenheim 1973; Reade 1981: 158. 





D. Orators and Philosophers 


the Persian saying that it is the "master's eye" which improves a horse's conditi- 
on. Isocrates' remark (4.147f) that the remnants of Cyrus' Greek mercenaries 
returned home escorted by Tissaphernes and the cavalry "in greater safety than 
those who go on embassies about philia" may presuppose knowledge that smaller 
escorts under less distinguished commanders did indeed accompany diplomatic 
caravans. Thucydides certainly knew that one needed someone to "send one 
inland" (anapempein) if one wanted to visit the King (2.67), though one wonders 
if he had even as much idea as we do (thanks to the Persepolis Fortification 
Tablets) of what this entailed. 

Other features of royal style present themselves. The King has a palace. 
When Xerxes leaves it to go on campaign in person in Isocrates 4.88, there is a 
clear implication that it is a place of inaction, but apart from that no source 
comments on any special characteristics it may have had. 59 Peacocks may have 
figured in Aeschines Socraticus Callias (Diogenes Laertius 2.30, with Allmann 
1972: 219-30) as an image for showy but intellectually empty sophists; and they 
certainly appeared in Antiphon's Against Erasistratus (cf. n.29), though the 
speech (intriguingly) never used the proper, but foreign, term for "peacock" 
(tads). The same work will also have touched on royal gift giving, and the special 
monetary value within the empire of a royal gift is attested - though without 
elaborate explanation - in the story of Demus' golden phiale in Lysias 19.25. 
More generally Thucydides (2.97) observes that the appetite of Thracian kings 
and notables for gifts is the reverse of the principle of Persian kingship. Royal 
gifts were, of course, liable to be thought of a bribes (Lewis 1989) -the speeches 
delivered in the cases of Epicrates and Timagoras, ambassadors allegedly corrup- 
ted in Susa (cf. n.46), must have contained much on this (and other) Persian 
topics -but those given to Themistocles were not of this character and Isccrate 
4.154 does not claim otherwise, though he does not go into detad eithe r. .? at o s 
Alcibiades reports that the birth of a son to the King is marked by a feast in the 
palace and celebrated as the King's birthday throughout Asia with sacrifices; md 
feasts (121C) and that huge tracts of land known as " be \° r _ V ^ n ^ 
kalyptra) are reserved to provide for the Queen's adornment Perception of 
even the highest ranking Persians as slaves is assumed in Demosthenes^(15T5 
23) and Andocides (3.29), though (obviously) some "slaves are more impottmt 
than others, for example dunatoi (Thucydides 1.89), ^^^J.\^^ t 
even some Greek tyrants (6.58). Isocrates 4.150 notes ^™]™^ 
people must exercize (literally "be tested") in the P^ .^^^SS 
the maintenance of a court "at the Gates of the King") and must a »™£™* v 

(proMindoumenoi) and perform f "e^^^^^^^ 
daimon. Isocrates does, of course, know that the Persian King 

59 If Aristid.ifcc.tom. 202-3 reflects the contents of ^f^™ Ecf Sn! 
1966: 94) he mentioned the king's peripatet.c use of several capitals ( 

1991, Tuplin [forthcoming (c)]). shoes of Hdt . 2 .98) represent 

60 Cardascia 1990 maintains that zone and kalyptra : i«n Morgenga- 
Greek misunderstanding (even wilful misunderstanding) of what 


, if* 


r^fil^ ;k :■ r ^vi;. ;■ ■ ^'-h :k 


Chapter 3. The Place of Persia in Athenian Literature 





be divine (indeed his whole point is that the Persians do not really think that he 
is), but the claim that he was even addressed as such is, so far as we know, 
inaccurate. It reflects the attitude deprecated by Isocrates in 2.4 that all monarchs 
are isotheoi in point of wealth, power and honour as well as Isocrates' own 
criticism of the Persian king for putting himself on a level with Zeus when 
dividing up the universe (4.179) - but the immediate explanation is presumably 
the Greek assumption that proskynesis is properly done to a god. It is very 
unlikely to represent, for example, a false deduction from the curious iconogra- 
phic interplay in various Achaemenid monuments between Kings and the win- 
ged-disk figure normally seen as an image of Ahuramazda. 61 

There is little else about religion. The various references to temple destructi- 
on (Isocrates 4.96,155 etc.) all concern mainland Greece in 480/79 and our 
authors (rightly) do not profess to regard the incidents as disclosing a strictly 
religious attitude. Thucydides 8.109 mentions Tissaphernes' intention to sacri- 
fice to Artemis of Ephesus, though even if his text did not break off at that point 
one wonders if he would have commented on the religious significance of this. 
Plato ascribes the magoi a role in Persian education and the idea of magoi kai 
tyrannopoioi in Republic 572E arguably reflects political role of the former. But 
the reference to the mageia of Zoroaster son of Oromazos [sic] in Alcibiades I 
122E discloses profound ignorance. Aristotle perhaps knew better: Peri Philoso- 
phias (fr. 6 Untersteiner) speaks of the magoi as part of a tradition older than the 
Egyptian one and mentions the twin forces of Good and Evil represented by 
Ahuramazda and Ahriman. He also wrote a work entitled Magikos (32-36 Rose), 
though claims that there was a Persian politeia strike me as highly venturesome. 62 

If [Andocides] 4 is at least a classical Athenian product, then we should 
register the suggestion in paragraph 17 that, when Alcibiades allegedly impriso- 
ned Agatharcus until he finished a painting, he was behaving like the King, since 
this could be a hint at the King's habit of employing Greek professionals of 
various sorts at his court. 



There is a large bibliography on this. See (very briefly) Root 1979: 169f and more fully 
Moorey 1978, Jacobs 1987, Lecoq 1984. A heterodox interpretation sees the figure as the 
royal khvarnah and in one version regards some images as showing the living King 
worshipping the khvarnah of his deceased predecessor or of Darius I (see Calmeyer 1979, 
Shahbazi 1980). - Moorey 1977: 146 postulates a different misinterpretation of the figure, 
one leading to the Greek belief in the Persian royal eagle, but this is hardly certain enough to 
constitute evidence of Greek consciousness of the winged-disk figure. The suggestion 
which I have heard advanced that certain Greek vase-paintings (e.g. one figured at Roscher 
s.v. Helios 1995) show a winged Helios created under Achaemenid influence is awry; the 
items involved actually give a frontal view of Helios travelling in a chariot pulled by 
winged horses (cf. Haspels 1936: 120,7-8; ABV 380 (290), 518 (21)). 
Suda s.v. Antisthenes falsely ascribed this to Antisthenes (Decelva Caizzi 1966: 86f). - It is 
hard to know whether Dio 25.5 (on Cyrus becoming a daimon) should be assigned to 
Antisthenes (Decleva Caizzi 1966: 93f). Xerxes is seen as a daimon driving the Persians to 
destruction in Dio 1 3.24, part of a passage which has been thought to derive from Antisthe- 
nes (cf. Allmann 1972: 250). (It also mentions the King's upright tiara and golden throne, 
notes that Persians are taught to ride, shoot and hunt and to be ashamed of nudity and 

D. Orators and Philosophers 


For the most part the philosophical and oratorical tradition was content to 
limit itself to general qualitative, not descriptive, discourse about Persians. 

(1) The political system and culture was one of tyranny or despotism (pas- 
sim), exercised over unwilling subjects (Isocrates 4.166). 63 This has certain 
practical consequences. Persian fathers rule their children like tyrants (Aristotle 
NE 8.10.4 [1160b]). Homosexual connections are condemned in Ionia and the 
Persian domain as a threat to tyranny (Plato Symposium 182A). The empire's 
subjects are diapephoremena and xympephoremena (Laws 693D); the same 
principle applied to Greece after 480 would have produced a complete confusion 
of Greek and barbarian gene, 64 

The precise reference of this last point is unclear. Is Plato talking about 
population transfers and implying that, if mainland Greece had been conquered, it 
would have been used as the dumping ground for deportees from the east (just as 
e.g. Bactria was for those from the west)? Or would the dispersal and amalgama- 
tion have resulted from alien military occupation (perhaps even intermarriage). 
Whatever the answer one should notice that the idea of amalgamation can be 
viewed more positively as a source of strength (or apprehension) as in the 
proposition implicit in Laws 685CD that the empire is z sustatheia ™ntws(z 
composite organisation). Occasional use til stasis terminology to describe inter _ 
nal disorder (Isocrates 4.134, 145) underlines rec0 S^ 
of monolith - even (cf. Laws 697F) apoto. (Notice ^^^^^S 
3.132 ascribes to Xerxes a description of the empire as stretching ^**^ 
to the setting sun", which recurs in Aeschines Socraticus fr. 1 ^ * l *^ 
reproduce any genuine Achaemenid phrase and is not even as colourful as things 

Baconians and Che, presumptuous ^£££££££5* 

acting like a tyrant eliminating leading men or like Ate«m 
Samos, Lesbos and Chios (Aristotle Politics 3 AJA9 [ )^>> E { butit 
awareness of multiple rebellions in Babylon, Media and gAaWy) ^J* 
would be optimistic to assume that Elam was a so in , An^e .m^ ^ 
tyrant analogy is extended in Politics 5.11.4 1^^- J ' 5 n 6) e>g . 
characteristic methods from Persia (or Persians and ^^/^^J. 
liquidating leading men; outlawing common meals or associations, making p 

63 Oddly though the King is never actually <*^^ See 

noticeably avoids doing so), unless Dem.9.38 shouia dc 

Tuplin 1985. . Androt 324F60, which explains the 

One suspects a connnection with the thought process in ■ evidently a hostile in terpre- 

Theban Spartoi as so called dia to summiges kai s P ora ™ j T huc.6. 17 (Alcibiades on 
tation of Theban origins as mixed and miscegenated. See 

SiciM „ r loon- 17) Thuc. 1.69.5 regards 

Se^d, 7.8; Xe„.Cyr,.1.4f, 8.6.21, 8.8.1 (but ( ~ T*» ^ "> 
the invaders of 480 as coming from the ends of the em • hands on the per sons of 

66 Isocrates' observation (9.63) that the Persia ns a ways a. by g desired contrast wlth 

leading rebels is not a piece of useful insight, but dictai 
the case of Evagoras. 





Chapter 3. The Place of Persia in Athenian Literature 



le frequent the palace and appear in public; spying; sowing distrust between 
different classes; impoverishment through taxation and building programmes. (It 
would be interesting to know what building operations Aristotle had in mind - or 
is this, as I rather suspect, an intrusion of strictly non-Persian items such as 
Egyptian pyramids or the wonders of Babylon?) Thucydides' Thebans suggest 
that it was natural for members of a dynasteia, interested only in the increase of 
their personal power, to support the Persian king, whose disregard of nomoi 
matched their own (3.62), 67 and his Athenians suggest that Persian subjects were 
denied moderation, equality and proper judicial processes ( 1 .77). Isocrates agrees 
as to the despotism of Persian rule, 68 but given the appropriate context he can put 
a different slant on it, declaring (3.23) that the empire flourished not because of 
Persian phronema but because of Persian respect for kingship. (The King can 
incidentally also be conceded intelligence when it suits - 12.159 presents the 
King's Peace as a case of the King outsmarting the Greeks.) 

(2) The political culture of tyranny evokes moral failings. We have already 
seen Isocrates' view (matched in Aristotle) that the elite class were required to 
dance attendance on the King. In the same passage (4. 150-1) the bulk of Persian 
population is called a disorderly mob (okhlos ataktos) best trained for slavery. 
The important people do not live in a fashion which displays any sense of equity, 
community or citizenship (homalos, koinos, politikos) but spend their time dis- 
playing hubris to some and being enslaved to others and are compelled mikron 
phronein. Hence Persians behave with mixture of servility (tapeinos) and arro- 
gance (huperephanos), and are cowardly and perfidious (153). Various other 
passages can be adduced in this and similar modes, highlighting pride, arrogance 
and cowardice, untrustworthiness. 69 A passage in Gorgias (525E) sums up all 




Compare PIat.G<?r£.483E (Xerxes' motivation for invasion was simply a belief in the right 
of the strong to dominate the weak), but contrast (to some extent) Thuc.8.47,54 where the 
kings prefers oligarchy to democracy (i.e. one type of *<?m<?j-regimented order to another). 
Thuc. 4.86.5, where intervention in a city in favour of one or other faction (the Many, the 
Few) would be a worse form of rule than the arkhe tou allophylou, may imply that Persian 
rule concerned itself only with a very few "agents" and did not care about Greek political 

The Persian king's rule is despoteia (Isoc.6.84), based on force not willing acceptance by 
subjects (4.166). Barbarian rule is enslavement (Isoc.14. 61); barbarians punish free men 
more harshly than Greeks treat bought slaves (4.123). 

(1) Arrogance. Isoc. 12.60, 160: Persian proneness to hubris, (cf. 12.47, 83, 167 for similar 
propositions in relation to mythical Greco-barbarian interrelations). Aeschines 3.238 de- 
scribes the Persian King's letter to Athens a little before 334 refusing financial help as 
hybnstic and barbarous. Isoc.4.89-90: Xerxes showed huperephania (e.g. Hellespont, 
Athos) and was prone to mega phronein id.4.117: barbarians meizon e proshekon phrone- 
santes. Thuc. 1.130: Pausanias was inaccessible when he began behaving like a Persian. 
PUt.Menex.240D talks about the huperephania of all of Asia. id. Rep.336A: the dictum that 
justice is helping friends and harming enemies must have originated with Periander, 
Perdiccas, Xerxes, Ismenias of Thebes or someone else who was wealthy and mega 
owmenos. (2) Deceit. Dem.14.39: the king considers falsehood and perjury honourable; 
i ^ \ o PerSlans punish benefactors (Conon) and reward enemies (Themistocles); IsocA 
146f, 5.91 f (murder of Clearchus and others); Thuc.8.108 (Arsaces' murder of the Adramy- 

D. Orators and Philosophers 


these vices and leads on to another - in Hades Rhadmanthus deals with souls 
from Asia e.g. the Great King or other kings and dynastai and finds in them not 
only perjuries, zdikiai, pseudos, alazoneia, hexousia [i.e. excessive power] and 
hubris, but also truphe, akratia, assymetria and aiskhrotes - in short an appetite 
for self-indulgent luxury. Other texts do not, however, really expand on this in 
any exciting fashion. 

Isocrates 4.150f, 5.124 and Plato Laws 637D, 695D do agree that (physical) 
self-indulgence (truphe) and softness are stereotypical Persian characteristics. 
Critias 88 B 3 1 wrote that the Thessalians, who are agreed to be most luxurious of 
the Greeks in the matter of clothes and life-style, invited Xerxes to conquer 
Greece out of admiration for Persian truphe and luxury. (Perhaps this was also 
the context in which he mentioned trousers and skeleai: 88 B 38.) Plato Alcibia- 
des 122B specifies the following signs of self-indulgence: sensuality, "dragging 
one's cloak" (himation helxeis), use of perfume (myron aloiphas), and an entou- 
rage of servants (theraponton plethous akolouthia), other habrotes. Thucydides 
speaks vaguely of Medic cuisine and Medic clothing (1.130). But apart from 
references to (presumably Persian) royal fish-ponds (Plato Politicus 264C), the 
long chitons of Persians (Cleidemus 323 F 10), the Persian tent which Alcibiades 
allegedly had at Olympia ([Andocides] 4.30), the bed which Tissaphemes offered 
to sell (8.80) and zonai (Plato Hippias Minor 368C reports Hippias' claim to wear 
a zone like those of luxurious Persians and to have made it himself, while 
Alcibiades 123B noted the huge tracts of land called zone or kalyptra reserved to 
provide for adornment of the Queen: but cf. n.60) there is little else to report. 
(Things might be different if speeches relating to Epicrates or Timagoras [n.46] 
had survived.) Authors prefer simply to stress sheer wealth and the appetitive 
urge. Thus Plato Meno 78D observes that in the view of Meno, "hereditary xenos 
of the Great King", the acquisition of gold and silver is a virtue; Alcibiades 
1.1 23 A stresses the unbelievable wealth of Persia in gold and silver (in the 
playful manner of this dialogue Plato solemnly explains that it even outdoes the 
hoarded wealth of fourth century Sparta!). According to Demosthenic texts the 
Persian king possess more wealth than everyone else put together (11.6) and it 
takes 1200 camels to carry all his gold (14.27). 70 Less extravagantly Thucydides 
has Xerxes tell Pausanias not to worry about the expenses caused by his plans to 
bring Greece into Persian control (1.130). In Isocrates Greeks fawn upon King 
because of his wealth ( 1 2.59) and the Persian king plots against Idrieus because it 
wants his person and all his wealth (5. 103). The same message occurs in Menexe- 
nus 241B. The Persians invaded Greece "in order to make money" (Lysias 2.25) 
and various texts make wealth stand for the enemy Greece defeated in 4*0- 
479,69 while Demosthenes 13.10 and Plato Lysis 211E make it a standard ot 

ttion Delians). (3) Cowardice. Isoc.4.149: Persian malakia shown I |V ^ ^ 
Isoc.5.100,137: anandria attributed to ArtaxerxesIII/Persians (not that th s cannot be attn 
buted to Greeks: cf. 5.127 of those not disposed to undertake crusade), Isoc.5.124. we 
naturally think of Persians as cowardly and polemon apeirou Athens in the 

70 The latter contains an engaging joke: 1200 is also the number of rich Athenians in the 
symmory system discussed in the speech. 





Chapter 3. The Place of Persia in Athenian Literature 










comparison saying respectively that a proposal is worth all the treasures of the 
Persian king and that it is better to have a friend than all the gold of Darius. 
Perhaps the most remarkable metaphoric instance is Republic 553C where the 
oligarchic man is said to put greed and the love of money (epithumetikon, 
philokhrematon) on a throne and make it a Grest King dressed in tiarai, necklaces 
and akinakai (Persian short swords). The rational and emotional faculties (logi- 
stikon, thumoeides) sit on the ground either side of the king as slaves. It is striking 
that a metaphor of this sort is used to describe the oligarchic man (whose 
governing characteristic is desire for wealth), not the tyrannical one - and also 
that the slaves on the floor seem to have no parallel either in the Achaemenid 
iconography of the enthroned King or in sub-Achaemenid ("greco-persian") or 
Greek reflections of it. 

In short, our authors do not dwell on the details of sensual gratification of the 
Persian life-style. It is, I imagine, essentially the general point that the King is 
rich and powerful - rather than fevered speculation about debilitating self- 
indulgence - that lies behind texts presupposing a common envy of his position, 
e.g. Apology 40D (even the Great King, let alone an ordinary mortal, would find 
that his life contained few periods more pleasant than a night of dreamless sleep) 
and Gorgias 470E, where Socrates says he does not know whether the king is 
happy because he does not known about his education or his sense of justice. 
Isocrates, always given to certainty, even if the certainties can change from 
context to context, quite unequivocally tells Nicocles (2.6) that rule over all of 
Asia, widely assumed to be the most desirable form of basileia is in reality very 
troublesome to its possessor. 

Positive assessment of Persian resources and values is not, however, entirely 
lacking. The anti-Persian line of Isocrates was predicated upon the existence of 
those who were impressed by the resources and power of the Achaemenid empire 
(4.134, 138, 5.139; Petit 1993b: 65). Demosthenes can also concede this when it 
suits him in XIV, though he then engages in fantasies about reversing the 
situation if only the Athenians will accept his naval reforms (cf. Briant 1989: 39) 

An interesting interplay of positive and negative judgments appears in Laws 
693D - 698A which provides a potted history of the kingdom from Cyrus to 

Under Cyrus the Persians liberated themselves and became masters of others, 
but allowed some freedom to subjects, even allowed them to be equals; so 
soldiers were loyal and wise counsellors could be found and there was a spirit of 
freedom, friendship and community (koinonia). Darius similarly promoted laws, 
guaranteed some degree of equality, invented a proper dasmos (something alrea- 
dy promised by Cyrus); the result was again friendship and community among all 
Persians and Darius was able to win over the demos [sic]. But the sons of these 
two kings were spoiled by being brought up as royal children by women and 
eunuchs; Cambyses did not acquire his father's skills or hardiness as a shepherd, 
Xerxes fell into self-indulgence (truphe). Cambyses murdered his brother, be- 
came a victim of madness and drunkenness and was displaced. After Xerxes there 
was too little freedom for the demos [sic] and too much despotism. As a result all 

D. Orators and Philosophers 


friendship and community were destroyed. Kings consulted only their own inte- 
rests, hate their subjects and are hated by them, and must rely on hired soldiers. 
Wealth became more important than ta legomena timia kai kala katapolin. This 
last word, polin, like the earlier references to demos, reveals how much the 
passage is informed by Hellenic prejudices rather than historical facts - it is not 
that the contrast between the fate of the two pairs of kings is unreal, but the terms 
of the explanation are "idealized". All the same it is a different "explanation" 
from the Isocratean approach which assumes that the Persian system is, and 
always has been, unchangingly bad. 

Positive valuation of Darius and Cyrus recurs. Antisthenes wrote two dialo- 
gues entitled Cyrus. Plato Epistle 332AB describes Darius' rule as characterized 
by laws, and he appears as lawgiver recurs in Phaedrus 258C. Epistle 320D 
implicitly makes Cyrus outstanding in ethos and politeia. Cyrus is a liberator who 
displayed phronema and despised the Medes' effeteness and luxury. 7 And the 
issue of education, treated negatively in Laws loc.cit. and in Isocrates 4.150f and 
5.139, where the Persian training ensures military failure and moral turpitude and 
Artaxerxes III is described as a barbarian "and an ill-brought up one at that , 
receives favourable treatment in Plato's Alcibiades 121Df, which provides (pro- 
fessed) details (riding and hunting are taught from 7 to 13; the cardinal virtues 
and Zoroastrian mageia from 14 onwards) and claims that a Persian prince win 
consequently have the advantage over an Athenian aristocrat in physis psykhes 
and this despite the fact that eunuchs are involved (and moreover excel the 
contribution of women). 73 But then this dialogue specializes in surprising state- 
ments. 105C brackets Xerxes with Cyrus as worthy of note (axtos b&u) 9 P^ 
kable even if it is only the judgment of Asiatics that is in question. 120A , allirrns 
that nobody suspects that a Persian king is the son of anyone but his P^ece s sor 
and the King's wife's virtue is not guarded by anything other than her fear a 
curious assertion in the light of Darius I, though it is true ** aU <^^ 
Kings, except Darius III (after Plato's death) were sons of previous £^(™ 
necessarily of their principal wife). 123A conjures up a pictme of ^J«tafiM 
with hoarded gold and silver in order to underline ^ ™^ *^ ha 
Persia has even more precious metal than Sparta. One is lef wi to fata* ha 
a certain whimsicality was required of any author ^^^^^L 
positive paradigm. There is something of the same slightly playful - and to many 
readers very tiresome - quality in Xenophon's Cyropaedia 

Demades Dodek. 13 describes the Macedonians as attacking ttesjceptra ^^"i 

the Persians; Lycurg.1.108: the Marathon victory showed .sup ' all the weaIth of 

wealth; Dem.9.35: in the fifth c. there was something whnch made tig 

Persia but which fails us now, viz. financial ^^"Jfownpfcn^mfl; Politics 5.10.8 

Menex239D: Cyrus liberated his fellow-citizens ; [sic] I by ^ ^ ^ to be king can 

(1310b): Cyrus liberated Persia (exemplify -ing ™ P° aUacked Astyag es because he 

benefit their countries); Politics 5.10.24 (UiW. ^ 

despised his luxury and effeteness. connected in GorgAlOE, Dio 

The topic of education and discourse about Persia are 

13.14-28 (? from Antisthenes), Aeschines Aspasta. 







Chapter 3. The Place of Persia in Athenian Literature 








The picture which emerges of the Persians from the sources I have been sur- 
veying is something like this. They can be expected to behave in fashions 
different from Greeks and are the stereotypical enemy. Few historical events 
involving them other than in their interaction with Greeks are familiar. They (or 
their kings) possess a large empire (variously seen as source of strength and of 
weakness) whose only (other) physical, floral or faunal characteristics are extre- 
mes of heat and cold, mountains, citrous fruit, camels, horses, peacocks, cocks, 
(perhaps) lions for hunting, paradeisoi, road systems measured in parasangs and 
travelled by escorted ambassadors and official messengers. Besides paradeisos 
and parasang few Persian words are known: angaros (messenger), orosanges 
(benefactor), magos (priest), marika (servant). There is great wealth, presumably 
fed inter alia by tribute, though the connection is rarely made, and disbursed 
occasionally in gifts - or bribes - and in the employment of Greek artists. The 
economic system involves payment in kind. Persians are liable to pride, hauteur 
and inaccessibility, and are (depending on context) warlike or weak and coward- 
ly. They enjoy a luxurious life-style (exemplified by clothing, textiles, food and 
drink, tableware, means of transport, fans and fly -whisks, furniture) in a positiv- 
ely organised, regimented fashion; but the Queens are sexually virtuous and 
sometimes energetically warlike. The birth of princes is widely celebrated, but 
the quality of their education is variously judged. Their polity is defined by a 
tyrannical ideology and systems of deferential behaviour and hierarchical control 
which deny equality (everyone save the Great King - who can be addressed as 
god - is essentially a slave, though some are more slave than others), value mere 
power and are inimical to the principle of Law - except that there have been 
"good" Persian kings to whom some of this does not apply. Eunuchs will be 
encountered; and impalement or crucifixion is employed as a punishment. 

This may sound like quite a substantial picture. But it is not produced by 
summarizing large amounts of detail: all the points mentioned appear in at least 
one text, but many appear in no more than one. More generally we should 
remember that, if we leave aside the references to historical events (which are in 
effect overwhelmingly about Greeks, not Persians), the corpus of surviving texts 
on which it is based contains only four of any length (Aeschylus' Persians, 
Aristophanes' Acharnians 61ff and two Platonic passages - in Laws and Alcibia- 
des - about education) and, apart from those four, probably amounts to barely ten 
pages. I should also stress that even Aeschylus' Persians and other tragic texts - 
texts from a genre which played an important role in Athenian self-definition - 
make use of a very small range of Persian ethnographical detail. So, there are 
certainly lacunae. 

In fact there are, strictly speaking, two types of lacuna: simple lack of 
objective information and failure to deploy objective information where it might 
have been expected in a particular literary context. Since it is always impossible 
to prove absolute non-possession of knowledge by the argumentum e silentio, the 
two categories are very hard to keep apart, and the second really predominates. If 

E. General Observations 


an author does not say X, even though X would have been useful in a given 
argument we may conclude either that he does not know X or that he knows it but 
for some reason has a different attitude about its interest / relevance from the one 
we are apt to ascribe to him. For example, surviving fourth century texts show no 
sign of sharing Ephorus' conception of a Great Satraps' Revolt in the late 360s. 
Their silence may, of course, be due to their being more wedded to reality than 
Ephorus (Welskopff 1989). But more general rhetoric about the empire s alleged 
inherent weakness makes no use of specific *<*^ « ^<^^ 
ledge to elaborate generalised claims about its size or the disparateness of its 
opponents. Again the Athenians in Thucydides 1.77 "know" that lomans had 
uTred far wofse under Persian rule before 480 because all £ .signs of equ^ 
or fair play which the Athenian imperial structure offers them had previously 
been absent. But this is a very "intellectual" point designed to P™^J % 
describe Persia, and the rhetoric remains ^^^^^^^Z 
piction of any excesses of harshness or expropriation of which this suffering 
might have consisted. Other silences could doubtles be f^^^SJ 
to concentrate now on three inter-related areas, the role of women, the propensity 
for physical cruelty and the enjoyment of extravagant Iiku^. 

For most people one of the sharpest characteristics of fourth cento*£ 
Athenian historiography on the Persian empire is ^^^^TZ 
which powerful, headstrong and vicious queens and pnncesses ma ™P 
outwit me King and wreak havoc - and exquisite "^^^J^SU his 
way thwart their own interests. Nor is th s an image confined C teuu ^n 
successors; at the very least the story of Masistes in Herodo* £ 1 0t) 
to a similar pattern. Moreover, quite apart «« J ^ I J^S t ^L to mind 
(sometimes) oversexed creations of Ctesias, a ™™*l™^ nce _ consid er 
other signs of an un-Greek **^«Jj~* Tl ^U 03 107; Munson 
Artemisia in Herodotus' account of 480 (8.68f. 87 , ^ a . , 
1988), Artemisia the wife and successor fJ^^Tx^on Hellenica 
s.v. Artemisia II), Mania the sub-satrap of Troadi Awjs^ P of a 

3.1.101); and the tales of Herodotus' ^^^n^ ^ ^^ 
different colour from the Masistes story - Atossau gg 
imperial conquest (3.113), Phaidyme exposing the impos ^ ^ 

Intaphernes' wife persuading Darius to spare som i sister _ marriages and 

execution (3.119). There is also the question of Xajroy ^ . & ^ 

the multiple marriages of e.g. Darius (c f. H^ ^ ^ high relief by 
from the outset the "court" history tended to throw w 
Greek city-state standards. f thing : s very muted. 

But the response of Athenian authors to this so Unelaborated know- 

The issue of physical cruelty is barely **£»* a unrema rkable, and the 
ledge that impalement or crucifixion were prac f leading men (Aristotle 

liquidation of Adramyttion Delians (Thucydides 5^; ^^ used 

PoMc, 3.13.19 [1284a]) are "^^f^ of punishment but has 
The story of Zopyrus presupposes mutilation _ a = jg7 RA Andocldes 

receded into merely proverbial status in Cratinus 



Chapter 3. The Place of Persia in Athenian Literature 







1.138 speaks of the "barbarian land" in the eastern Mediterranean where many 
have been wrecked and then captured and tortured to death. Isocrates 4. 153 could 
be read as implying that the Persians mistreated prisoners of war and he also talks 
about the harm done to Idrieus' brother, using a word (aikizein) which can refer to 
torture (5.103). But it is impossible to be sure what assumptions about Persian 
behaviour, correct or otherwise, lay behind these passages, and the two Isocrates 
passages may well have nothing to do with torture at all. The truth is that, though 
physical cruelty has always tended to be a topos of Orientalism and (more 
importantly) Persian sources (the Behistun narrative [DB 32, 33], though not the 
accompanying image) actually confirm an Achaemenid taste for mutilation and 
torture, though not in the baroque detail of Ctesias, 74 Athenian sources are 
profoundly uninterested. Perhaps what strikes us as a gruesome deviation from 
civilised practice only struck Athenians as different but not necessarily worse. 

As for women, Amestris mother of Artaxerxes I, an unforgivingly bloodthirsty 
personality in Ctesias, is mentioned neutrally in Alcibiades 123C - she would be 
startled to be told that Alcibiades (the son of Deinomache) intended to pit himself 
against the Great King. The role of Atossa in Persae is prominent but (in the 
context of a Greek tragedy) it is hardly "odd" in any ways which could be thought 
to reflect a special perception of Achaemenid women. Aeschines Socraticus' 
Rhodogyne, the queen who abandoned her coiffure to defeat rebellious Armeni- 
ans, is a more exotic creation, though in a different category from Ctesias' 
Parysatis (688 FF 15-17, 24, 26-29 passim). At best the invention - which 
among other things shows that Persian addiction to truphe can be mitigated in the 
interests of military security - may reflect awareness of less obviously vicious 
models of Achaemenid womanhood, e.g. Ctesias' Rhoxane, skilled at riding and 
shooting (688 F 15(54)) or Hellanicus' Atossa - a lady of masculine character 
who "invented" such fundamental features of the Persian world as the tiara, 
trousers, eunuchs and written orders (687A F 7). Nor should we forget the pre- 
Persian Semiramis (cf. Ehlers 1966: 48f, Eilers 1971), a figure perhaps first really 
elaborated by Ctesias and standing in a complicatedly symbiotic relationship 
with the likes of Atossa and with Achaemenid reality. 

Certainly Rhodogune is on the face of it presented as a good example. The 
same is true of the Persian queens whose sexual fidelity (policed by fear, not by 
supervising guardians) is, according to Plato, such that there is never any questi- 
on but that the King is the son of his predecessor (Alcibiades 121B). It is true that 
from Xerxes onwards all Achaemenid Kings were held to be sons of their 
predecessors, but not all were seen (at least by Greek sources) as legitimate sons 
and Plato' s "explanation" of the situation will be startling to any reader of Ctesias 
who remembers Amestris or (especially) Amytis, sister of Artaxerxes I (688 F 
14). If we could be sure what sort of Platonic joke (if any) is being made here, we 
might infer that the passage effectively proves that his readers were aware of the 
lurid reputation of Achaemenid females, but I do not feel very confident. (Things 

74 688 F 15 (55), 16 (58, 66, 67), 27 (70); Plul Artox.\4-\l ( = Ctes. 688 F 26), 19 (= Ctes. 688 
F 29). (Execution by suffocation in ash recurs, incidentally, in II MaccA3Af.) 

E. General Observations 


are complicated by the fact that Persian royal wives are being compared with 
Spartan queens and that Alcibiades was thought to have had a liaison with a 
Spartan queen, Timaea: Plutarch Alcibiades 23.) It would also be interesting to 
know what form was taken by Rhodogyne's apparent rejection of Eros (Philostro- 
stratus Imagines 2.5; Ehlers 1966: 48f): was it a total neglect of sexual activity or 
something more like the habit of Ctesias' Semiramis, who took numerous lovers 
but had them all executed the morning after? The latter would move her closer o 
the lurid models of Achaemenid womanhood, but the former seems more probab lc 
in the context of Aeschines' Aspasia. where mere ^^.^^^ 
distracting from the essential argument (as reconstructed by Ehlers 1966) than 

positively evil misuse of it. f 

P While on the subject of marital behaviour it is worth noting the rarety of 
reference to sibling or offspring marriage of the sort that reportedly occurred 
tn ^ the Achaemenids (Herrenschmidt 1987). The 01 :™gf% 
marriage remain mythological (Oedipus; Thyestes) in ^ndoades ;U2 -9 and 
Pseudo Andocides 4.22. It does not occur to either author ^££9^ 
Alcibiades' matrimonial arrangements are even worse than ho ot ^ ^ 
family - an apparently particularly attractive line given tha Calhas .nd Alcibi 
des were the great conspicuous consumers of ^ ^^Attojlt * left o 
Antisthenes fr 29 to accuse Alcibiades of sexual "^TT^^^^ 
and sister "like the Persians" - and even so the possibility huto^JJ 
the Persian comparison was inserted by our intermediate source for the Antistne 
nes passage, Herodicus (During 1941: 70). something 

What Persian women certainly do wrong in one At ^ltnc^Zclf at 
with which the historiographies tradition is not known ^^^^ 
all, namely subject royal prmces to a *^^ ) . 1 ^ nilte specifi- 
(gynaikeia kai tryphosa paideia: Plato Lam 6 *^ °* f / that the wome n had 
cally attributes the problem in Cyrus' reign to the fact *" 
recently become wealthy and were ^J^gK 2K a passage 
carrying out further conquests). I cannot jcsist ^ r f* 8 Achae menid 

dictated more by a priori hypothesis tha n ac tual £wtoflge f 

court-life, but in any case the women »^a»^^ 
what were evidently for Plato stereotype female charac .ensi Qf 

in frivolous pleasure, and they show no «^^^Sm the most one 
the hi S toriog?a P hic sources. In terms ^^^^^ (with eunuchs 
might concede is that the passage Pappose a am .^ anslation » in to 

involved as well as women), but even th f ^ ^ stocrat; and the fluidity of 
oriental terms of the wife and slaves of an fflw^J^icion is revealed in 
Plato's "knowledge" about female impac on Persia . ^.^ ^ 

Alcibiades 121D where we find the ^^g™^^ but (solely) to 
fortunately not entrusted to a female nurse u« . . s This simply represents 
eunuchs (up to the age of seven) and then to male t ^ ntative co ntext. 

a different piece of stereotyping devised tor a u fem inine education 

It is notable that the Laws passage just discuss B tim in Lysis trata 

as producing tyranny, not effeminacy. There is also 


Chapter 3. The Place of Persia in Athenian Literature 

E. General Observations 



r*' ; 






285, 1032 that Athens' opponents at Marathon were effeminate - quite the 
opposite: the Marathon-fighting chorus had overcome respectable opponents, but 
are now worsted by some very masculine Athenian women. But there is an 
assimilation of Xerxes and women in Persae 465; and Isocrates' remark (5.90) 
that Cyrus and the 10,000 defeated the Persians as completely as if they were 
fighting their womenfolk takes the same line. On the whole, however, though it is 
hard to know how much allowance to make for the way that features of "Persian" 
dress got adopted by Athenian women, it is my impression that the view of 
Persians as specifically effeminate is not much highlighted in our Athenian 
sources. None of the passages in comedy which make jokes about effeminate 
Athenians uses any distinctively Persian material; and if Mnesilochus in Thesmo- 
phoriazousae is cast at one stage in the role of Andromeda (a figure who could be 
represented in oriental dress because of her association with Perseus, supposed 
mythical progenitor of the Persians), he is not dressed as a Persian and there are 
no Persian jokes. (Ethnic humour in the scene is confined to the Scythian 

It is clear that both the image of Persians as effeminate and the image of 
Persian court life being "ruled" by the vicious and vindictive passions of royal 
women could theoretically have been useful to purveyors of anti-Persian rhetoric. 
One example of the former from Isocrates and none of the latter seems a poor 
showing. Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1983 has, of course, argued that murderous and 
vindictive queens, whether in Ctesias or Herodotus, are a literary topos, not a 
reality. We might therefore suggest that their absence in our Athenian sources is 
due to the fact that they are responding to reality not literature. This would be 
surprising: why should Athenians forego a negative image of Persia just because 
it is fictional, especially when it is a fiction presumably devised to meet a popular 
taste? It might suit idealisation of classical Athens to believe that Athenians had 
too much "good" taste to fall for cheap sensationalism; but is it likely to be true? 
In any case the suggestion does not address the whole problem. Deconstruction of 
the "vindictive queen" topos does not necessarily eliminate women altogether 
from the Achaemenid scene. Even women who are not morally reprehensible but 
who do exercise power could be construed as a proof that there is something 
wrong with Persia. But whether we are talking of literary construct or hypotheti- 
cal^ perceived reality the picture is generally very empty of women. Aeschines' 
Rhodogyne remains the only sign of a prominent Achaemenid woman in the texts 
we are surveying. It is impossible to tell whether he regarded her as unusual even 
in a Persian setting but she may essentially reflect no more than the not particular- 
ly profound realization that a monarchic system can produce female rulers. For 
the rest the "real" and "ordinary" women of the Achaemenid system are barely 
perceived at all, and (on the face of it) the status and pretensions of Amestris in 
Alcibiades 123C depend on those of her husband and son in exactly the same 
degree as do those of Deinomache, wife of Cleinias and mother of Alcibiades. 
Perhaps we should rather conclude that for some reason it did not in the end suit 
Athenian wishes to demonize Persians by turning them into women or making 
them prey to eccentrically powerful women. 

Finally Persian luxury. I have already indicated that Athenian sources ex- 
attract little detailed «»nuo . examples and comments may 


acquisitiveness in the oligarchic ™\^™%^^L*M* 
Again there is one exception, the alleged comic use of word * 

trodden upon. This represents a rather ^. M ^ 1 ^JSrt^ , in ight.of 

course, say that it is such an •«^ fc P er ?^™ 1 i^pe C tivetotto 
familiarity with the phenomenon. But there is «*^£*JP££ot as much - 
panicularissue whi^ 

ornot necessarily as much -of a luxury object as ^ 

may prove a relevant point in other cases too as we shalUe^) & 

of wealth is the possession of numerous ta ^ t ^^ wmn display a 
special category under this heading, the •r^^Sdring the Persians, 
remarkable failure to lay stress on eunuchs, ^J 1 ^. C "^ ppar g ent i y not seen 

They appeared on stage in **y^\ P ^™^3!&* *** three 
and certainly not mentioned in Aeschylus Pen* e. y,^ ^ ^.^ 
extensive surviving texts {Acharnians bin, ria f children; lam 

121Aff). The last affects to praise their role m the ^rg£g with "womanish 
694Aff associates them, in a decidedly unstte ^ ed ^Jits are a means of 
upbringing"; and in Aristophanes ^^^^^L life which can 
making jokes about certain Athenians - tney arc ^ com ment in their 

be assumed for comic purposes but they are noi j ^ been brought 

own right. Nor for that matter is Pseudartaba himself ^ ^ ^ ^ m 

on stage dressed up in the most exotically ™^J£ t of V the scen e he plays a 
he was from anything in the text), but in Athenians around him. 

relatively dignified and truthful role compared wnn whefe the 

There is similar under-exploitation ^of the , deto* « ^.^ making his 
potential targets are Athenian. Demosthenes zi_ J ^ hangers . on who 
way arrogantly down the street acco ^ p ^„ g D h y o rns he possesses; but he makes 
^A^^i^ca^b^^^^^^ int0 this unpleasant 
no effort to inject a suggestion of the barbarian .<**> ^.^ ^ Calhas 
display. Two or three generations earlier the ng comme nted) attract 

(about the treatment of whose marital vagaries 
attention. .. Qt tvrannv a suspicion at least in part 

Alcibiades was suspected rf'^S,, us that he adopted Persian 
fuelled by extravagant life-style, ^ter source into ^ ^^ Vana 

manners when ensconced with ^sapheme (A ^ ct in survivin g contempor- 
H« to ria4.15.2),butthis seems tohaveye^httlennP re ^ ^ ^ Thucydldes 

ary or near-contemporary criticism of the ma . 


Chapter 3. The Place of Persia in Athenian Literature 

til 1 







and the relevant Isocrates and Lysias speeches and in most of the Old Comedy 
references. 75 The only certain case (if the text is actually of early fourth century 
date) is Pseudo-Andocides 4.30f where Alcibiades is said to have had a Persian 
tent from Ephesus at the Olympic Festival of 416 and the claim is moreover part 
of a passage about the cities that provided Alcibiades' various needs which may 
be intentionally modelled on descriptions of Artaxerxes' grant of cities to Themi- 
stocles. Otherwise all one can point to is (i) the possibility that the speaker in 
Aristophanes' Triphales who raises the question of whether he is wearing a 
kurbasia is Alcibiades and (ii) the elusive subtexts of certain Socratic works, 
Antisthenes' Cyrus or On Kingship (which mentioned Alcibiades' sexual beha- 
viour), Aeschines Alcibiades (which compared Alcibiades' ambitions with the 
achievements of Themistocles, saviour of Athens but also manipulative bene- 
ficiary of the Great King) and Plato's Alcibiades I, which compares Persia and 
Sparta with Athens (to the disadvantage of the latter) in the course of demonstra- 
ting the young Alcibiades' lack of qualification for a political career. Fourth 
century writers and readers obviously could not simply erase all facts about the 
real Alcibiades from their minds. But Plato at least (the only one whose text we 
can actually judge) makes absolutely no attempt to point up the possible irony of 
comparing Alcibiades with a Persian prince. One cannot tell whether this is 
because it was unimportant to him or because it was so obvious and central to the 
dialogue that it did not need pointing up. 

Callias frittered through a fortune in an orgy of conspicuous consumption in 
the later fifth century, doused in perfume, surrounded by hangers-on and, accor- 
ding to Plato, protected from the outside world by a eunuch door-keeper. But it 
apparently never occurs to those describing and criticizing his life-style to sug- 
gest that he is behaving like a Persian. The only possible hint of such an idea is in 
Birds 283f, where Callias is brought on stage as a noble (gennaios) bird heavily 
plucked by prosecutors and women. The fact that he immediately follows the 
Medos-bird and that a "noble" bird which has lots of feathers could be interpreted 
as a fighting cock (Sommerstein 1987: ad loc, following Borthwick 1967: 249f) 
makes one wonder whether there is an implied assimilation of Callias and Persian 
luxury. But the primary reason for the cock is not that it is the "Persian bird" but 
that Callias was a devotee of cock-fights and the actor involved was certainly not 
dressed as a cock but as a hoopoe. If there is an ethnic reference it is as likely to be 
to Thrace, via Tereus (to whom oblique reference is made). In any case I suspect 
that the passage approaches almost as close to making Callias a Persian as it 
could without actually doing so - and that, if anything, it underlines the failure to 
use this approach in dealing with him. 

What, then, are we to make of the lacunae to which I have been drawing 
attention? Assessing the relative impact of Persian matters in the fifth and fourth 

75 Vickers 1987: 180, 189f, 191f, 195 and 1989c: 47, 51, 53f, 59, 61f finds allusions to 
Alcibiades* Persian connections in Sophocles Philoctetes, Euripides Cyclops and Helen and 
Aristophanes Thesmophoriazusae. This is part of a wide rsearch for allusions to Alcibiades 
in a variety of late fifth century dramatic texts (see also Vickers 1987, 1989c, 1989d, 199x) 
the results of which not everyone will find consistently convincing. 


E. General Observations 


century authors in our sample is difficult, not least because of the lack of 
comparably well preserved texts in given genres in the two periods; but it is 
doubtful that there is any increase in impact. Yet there was a good deal of 
"professional" writing about Persia in the fourth century (Xenophon, Ctesias, 
Heraclides, Dinon - not to mention the historians of Greece whose work must 
have included significant Persia sections, e.g. Theopompus); and Persia was 
certainly important in the political affairs of the era and as an employer of Greek 
mercenaries. Of course Athenians may not have been numerically prominent 
among the latter class, despite the cases of Xenophon, Iphicrates or Timotheos 
(or more mundanely the man whose death at Acre comes into question in Isaeus 
4 7) But men of the standing of Iphicrates and Timotheus could theoretically 
have channelled a lot of information into the public domain, just because they 
performed in that domain. The attitude of Iphicrates, the aggressively self-made 
common man, to Achaemenid phenomena is something one would like to hear 
more about. He quarrelled violently with Pharnabazus and then fled for his lite 
(Diodorus 15.43), but what impression his rehearsal of these facts had at Athens 
we simply do not know (save that the Athenians refused to surrender him to 
Pharnabazus' ambassadors). The echoes of disputes surrounding the visit of 
Athenian ambassadors to Susa do come through to us - but only dimly. It is the 
non-Athenian historiographical tradition which preserves details of the enormi- 
ties of which Timagoras was allegedly guilty. t „ ron uh<> 
So there is something of a paradox. One component may be the nature^ of the 
importance of Persia. This tended to underline Greek weakness - -ari ^specialty 
Athenian weakness, just as much when Persian resources were winning th Rattle 

to defeat in 404 or acceptance of the King s p eace in .so a io , 

imperialism had been predicated, at least initially, on ^^ to *™£™£d 
position of superiority The fourth century Athenian ^^J^^d 
on absolute acceptance of the King's right to all of Asia The* are cwunjtjnce. 
not perhaps calculated to encourage many Athenians towards greater ethnogra 

phic interest in things Persian. t . PTlian disinterest 

But this is only part of the answer because fourth cent «J Atojnd tutfenrt 
is only part of the problem. If there is a distinction to be drawn be ween he m 
and fourth century evidence, it is not great; and one mus t rei era e hat m 
Athenian historiographical observer of fifth century ^^S of the 
Olorus - a man whose patronymic .discloses connec,o J^ "g^ 
barbarian surrounds of Athens' environment - h»r very n J 

(Andrewes 1961). No doubt it is open to us to say th^, had e 
the History, something would ^ve^beendooejou^^ call 

nes the point. If an enhanced Persian dimen on was g^ ^^ ^ 
spliced into the text at a late stage, then it was c ^ ^ ^^ ^ 

Thucydides did not naturally co ^ an v d ' '" 'frrudelv the contrast between the 
material which is already in the unfinished text, uu j ^ ^ Athenian 

Halicarnassian subject of ^J^^Ztrl is simply a part of the 
aristocrat who (apparently) is not or tor wnom 



Chapter 3. The Place of Persia in Athenian Literature 




politico-military environment like any other is much like the contrast between 
fourth century Athenian politicians and, say, the Cnidian Ctesias. 

The real answer lies in various aspects of what one might call the "normaliza- 
tion" of Persia. A remarkable feature of some Old Comedy texts (Aristophanes' 
Babylonians and Knights, Eupolis' Marikas) is, as we saw, the assimilation of 
Persian empire and Athens. To compare Athens with Persia as a way of saying 
that the current Athenian political set up is unacceptable and should be altered 
(and in Knights at least the new status quo is not obviously different in fact) 
seems very provocative, when we are talking of what remains (sometimes anyway) 
the ancestral and "natural" enemy. A similar point recurs in different form in the 
fourth century in Plato's Alcibiades I, though the shock is perhaps less, since 
Socratic dialogues are not "civic" literature in quite the same way as Old Come- 
dy, and in fact may be positively expected to be subversive. All the same, one 
wonders whether the approach was acceptable because Athenians half-liked the 
idea of an equation between themselves and Persia, just as they perhaps half-liked 
the idea of their city as a tyrant (Tuplin 1985). This question can be pursued 
further by considering the extent of conscious imitation of Persian phenomena in 
the construction of the Athenian empire and the practices of Athenian society. 
Does the relative absence of obsessive and prejudiced reference to alien features 
of Persia disclose a greater degree of tolerance or indifference than is commonly 
supposed? I shall finish with a number of items which may bear on these issues. 

1. Pericles' Funeral Speech (Thuc.2.40): "we love beauty without becoming 
extravagant and wisdom without becoming soft; wealth we regard as something 
which facilitates action, not as a subject for boasting" (philokaloumen met'euteleias 
kai philosophoumen aneu malakias, ploutoi te ergou mallon kairoi e logou 
kompoi). There is no explicit reference to foreign values here, but implicitly 
Pericles is defining a position between Spartan austerity and oriental extravagan- 
ce. Given the idealizing nature of the source, it hardly proves that personal 
conspicuous consumption did not occur or was not tolerated when it did. Quite 
the contrary: the speaker is arguably conceding that a visitor could see from 
people's behaviour that Athens was a place which contained rich citizens and 
providing a justification of the situation - and we know, of course, that there were 
persons who went in for considerable display, e.g. Callias and Alcibiades. This 
provoked attacks in comedy, but such attacks, quite apart from lacking "Persian" 
traits, did them no appreciable damage as such. Alcibiades' fall was not the result 
of his lifestyle in itself but of his having acquired political enemies (by engaging 
in politics in a highly ambitious fashion) and of his folly in getting involved in 
profanation of the Mysteries. Both Callias and Alcibiades would have argued that 
their wealth was a means of action, and other things being equal their fellow 
Athenians would accept this. In any case, men of this sort were extraordinary not 
because they engaged in conspicuous consumption at all, but because they did it 
to such an extravagant degree. Crane 1993 has noted the ambiguities which mark 
even so apparently a straightforward text as the Carpet Scene of Aeschylus' 
Agamemnon, and we should not be seduced by the change of dress habits to 
which Thucydides 1.6 refers into envisaging mid and late fifth century Athens as 

E. General Observations 


i t 

a place of Maoist austerity, and just because e.g. the immensely rich Nicias did 
not deport himself like Alcibiades it does not follow that he locked all his money 
up in a box under the bed and lived in apparent poverty. In general it seems 
reasonable to suspect that moderated expression of wealth through visible display 
was perfectly common. (One notes that in Pseudo-Xenophon AP 1.10 only poor 
Athenian citizens are indistinguishable from slaves or metics. The implication is 
arguably that well-off ones dress strikingly.) We might also suspect that as 
conditions became harder in the last third of the century because of the war there 
was a correspondingly increased inclination to enjoy one's wealth. 

2. Imperial Athens was notoriously open to the "imports" from the outside 
world. A famous fragment of Hermippus (63K = 63KA) lists such things and the 
general point recurs in Thucydides 2.38.2 (Athenians get the enjoyment of things 
both from home and from hoi alloi anthropoi) and more strikingly Pseudo- 
Xenophon AP 2.8 which adds that, unlike other Greeks, Athenians did not simply 
have their own dialect, way or life and appearance (phone, diaita f skhema\ but 
one combining elements drawn from the whole Greek and barbarian world 
(kekramene ex hapanton ton Hellenon kai barbaron). None of this evidence 
mentions Persia, but it postulates in general an open and cosmopolitan society - 
the other side of the coin from the exclusive and xenophobic society which can 
also emerge from Athenian sources. The state's booty from the Persian Wars was 
apparently stored as a separate accountable item on the acropolis (cf. Thuc. 
2.13.3-5), but this was not entirely matched by a similar detachment and com- 
partmentalisation in real life. 

3. There is an arguable Persian input to certain public buildings of fitth 
century Athens. The Odeion was allegedly a copy of the Persian King s tent (the 
object itself had been captured after Plataea, and some think it was then used as a 
backdrop - or perhaps as a model for the the backdrop - for tragedy productions); 
and arguments are intermittently advanced for a connection between the design 
of the Parthenon and that of Persepolis (cf. Root 1985). Moreover the tnbu Re- 
collecting empire of Athens inevitably recalls that of the Achaemenids - in act 
the latter was the only available model at the time of the foundation of the Deian 
League - and the annual presentation of tribute and of cow & panop * dhetf 
subjects at the Dionysia and Panathenaea reminds one of the K^*^ £j 
"tribute-procession" as a major symbol of imperial P<^- ^J* 1992 ha 
recently pointed out that the arrangement by which at the ^^^ 
women were required to hold parasols for citizen women is ^^^ 
oriental relationship - parasol-bearer and dignitary - to expre ^^^ 
macy . If comic poets can compare Athenian and Persian empires, it is not without 

la* archaic A.hens .he. had been .f-« h S !"S.y 
sia; ceramic representations of this tail ^^^^g^ or fourt h century abandoned, .hough I an, ujj. surc w* h£ our la£«. ^ (The 
ceramic ev dence necessarily proves mat u uiu nar asols - for the 

practice of dressing in Lydian fashion - including jewellery and parasols 


Chapter 3. The Place of Persia in Athenian Literature 






purposes of the komos lasted until the mid fifth century at least). 76 Athenian 
cavalrymen had arguably once had made a practice of dressing as Scythians, but 
this had died out by 480 (unlike Thracian dress which lasted until at least the 
440s) and no Persian analogue ever occurred. 77 However Wasps is presumably 
evidence that late fifth century young men of a certain class and taste sometimes 
wore a kaunakes during the harsh Athenian winter. A taste undoubtedly develo- 
ped for patterned clothes (cf. Von Lorentz 1937; Linders 1984). Women certainly 
wore Persian shoes quite commonly; and the ependytes (seen as a garment 
appropriate to orientals and worn by Persian warriors on vase-paintings), the 
sleeved chiton and the kandys were not unknown, while the parasol had some 
social use besides its appearance at the Panathenaea (and on the Parthenon 
frieze), as did the fan. 78 These facts should not be regarded as insignificant 
because it is "only" women who are involved. If the Athenians had wished to 
keep dress habits strictly uncontaminated by eastern intrusions, they could surely 
have prevented their women from behaving in this fashion. What the evidence 
demonstrates is that the marks of oriental luxury were tolerable, within limits. No 
Athenian citizen was going to don trousers, however beautifully decorated; but 
he could allow his wife to adopt features of the dress of Persian women and 
vicariously gain some social status himself. If any doubts were felt about the 
practice it could perhaps have been rationalized by the feeling that it was only 
acting out in public the proposition that the east was effeminate: but there is no 
textual evidence for such an argument and it may be that no need was actually felt 
for it. We have already seen that literary sources do not stress the feminine 
peculiarities of the Achaemenid world. The explanation is perhaps that , when so 
much of Athens' claim to fame and status in the fifth century depended on having 
defeated Persians in battle and so much of her weakness in the fourth century was 
the result of being outmanoeuvred by Persians in battle and diplomacy, there was 



de Vries 1973, Boardman 1989a, Price 1990, Miller 1992: 99, Kurke 1992 
Vos 1963, Cahn 1973, Raeck 1981. The Scythian archer statue on a Ceramicus peribolos 
(NM 823824: Garland 1982: 138) perhaps has some relevance here. 
Quasi-Persian/oriental clothing is worn by women. Persikai embades: See n.39. Kandys: 
Linders 1984 (listed in Brauron inventories; shown on vases from later fifth century on; also 
worn by children on chous vases). Ependytes: Miller 1992. Knee-length sleeved chiton: 
Plato 229K = 255KA, ARV 1 143.1, 1240.63, CVA USA vi 2 pl.43, Alfieri & Arias, Spina 
pl.87.1. More generally showy garments are female garments. Pherecr.100 K = 106 KA: 
mitra. Ar.NubAl, Lys,2\9 y 647, AAg. 239, E.PhoenA49\: krokotos. The xustis is associa- 
ted with the special context of the kannephoria (Ar.Z/ys.ll89f), which is also when young 
girls wore a lot of gold (ibid., Av.610) y and where parasols appear in what Miller 1992 sees 
as a deliberate reference to Achaemenid ritual. But the parasol is also in secular use on 
fourth century vases (Miller 1985: 273) and maybe earlier (cf. Ar.TA.823, 829, Strattis 56K 
= 59KA, Eupolis 445K = 481KA, Pherecr.64K = 70KA, IGi 3 422.144); and the fan appears 
in the later fifth (Louvre S 1660, MMA 22.139.25, Ferrara MN Spina T 127, Vienna iv 
3748, Syracuse 17427). - The xustis was, however, also worn by the jeuness doree in 
chariots (Ar.Nub.10) - it may be that sort of context Plato has in mind when suggesting as a 
paradox that farmers should wear xustides and gold crowns (RepA20E) - and the kaunakes 
(Ar.V.1135) is male clothing. Aristophanes has other references to showy male dressing 
(P.1175 [a Sardian cloak with hippococks], V.1145). 

f \ 

E. General Observations 


a lot to be said for treating them as essentially respectable opponents - a deviant 
polity but not a sexually deviant one. (It is worth noting in this context that when 
Xenophon devised an assimilation between Ischomachus' wife and the Persian 
king in Oeconomicus, he did it - no doubt in a spirit of conscious paradox - to 
confer status on the woman, not to denigrate the King; and that his negative 
picture of Persian decadence in Cyropaedia 8.8. Iff makes no use of women at 


' 5 There were Athenian ceramic imitations of Persian silver and gold table- 
ware Recent arguments about the status/function of painted ceramics (especially 
from Michael Vickers) suggest that the real thing also graced Athenian dinner- 
parties and symposia - and were probably pretty well naturalized and as unremar- 
kable as the darics which lay in Lysias' brother's treasure chest (Lysias 12 11) or 
all the phialai which - unlike that which Demus attempted to unload onto 
Aristophanes (Lysias 19.00) - were not actual gifts from the Great King. One 
may add that the houses in which such tableware was used might well a so 
contain Persian carpets or tapestries (cf. at least Aristophanes ^1215, 
Hermippus 63 K = 63 KA); and if Ion (of all people) can be ^P«^f«^Z 
up a tent containing barbarian textiles decorated with a mixture ofG^J 
oriental images (Euripides Ion 1160f) then such things are cle arly_ a °"Pt*J * 
Athenian sentiment. The obsession of fourth century comedy with food and its 
minutiae (predominantly within a context of Greek social prac ice] , d o • no 
generate recognisable Persian references to any notable degree " *« ^ « 
no tendency to assimilate the sophistication or luxury of that pracUce to ^he e«L 
This could be because there was no comparison - or because wha : tad been 
absorbed into Athenian behaviour had been absorbed so thoroughly tha the ssue 
of eastern origins or parallels was no longer particularly significant ( lf it ev« tad 
been). As a general fact those classical texts, whether A^norrttem^ 
which displa? hostility to luxurious life-styles <tf™>%^£££ 
likely to refer to Ionia or Lydia as to Persia - if they ^^ * A/ isnot 
connection at all" The history of Athenian exposure and ^™ ^^ 
only a history of relations with the Achaemenid ^^^* ^ab- 
relative "luxury" in dress which Thucydides L6 describes as ha S 
andoned in mid-fifth century Athens (and ^^XaSi^d Sdty in 
with Persian, Syrian and Punic clothing) was wta tad ch *£«™^ * 
theeraof Marathon.* 1 East Greek tradmon might claim that me y 
sunk into luxury because Cyrus and Croesus colluded in forcing them 

& Gill 1994. rK . . . r , K c 4 ^ K -556KA,Antiphan.9lK = 91 

80 C^5K-8B^lW|^^^S^^X^C.Theop. 115 FF 
KA, Antiphon fr.67, Satyr. ap.Athen.534B, Clearcn. ap 

62 ' 105 - n - f ■ Th^istocles' time was habron); Ar.£«?.580 (Persians 

81 Teleclid.22 K = 25 KA (life in Thenustocles nm imenoi: ;. e . wres ,lers), 
defeated by those who were long-haired and scraped t P 

1321, Afafc.984, Eustath.//.13.685. 


Chapter 3. The Place of Persia in Athenian Literature 





(Herodotus 1.155f), but it was not necessary to believe that truphe betokened 
surrender to a Persian conqueror. And although there may have been some 
denigration or persuasive redefinition of habrosyne in the post-Persian Wars 
generations (Kurke 1992) one is hardly required to divest this of all traces of 
hypocrisy. 82 

6. In the years immediately after 480 there was some fashion for putting 
images of Persian warriors on Attic vases (Bovon 1963; Raeck 1981). There are 
two points to make about this. First, although in combat scenes the Persians are 
normally shown being defeated (except on pots intended for an eastern market), 
they are not usually treated in a charicature or contemptuous manner and they are 
not "demonized" (the "Eurymedon" vase - Raeck 1981: P601 - is an exception). 
Second, the fashion declined after the mid-fifth century, and especially after c. 
430. One may infer that, at least for social purposes, the Persian tended to be 
regarded throughout as a respectable enemy (much the same sort of attitude as 
that evinced by e.g. Herodotus), that as time went on the need to celebrate the 
victory over that enemy' diminished - and that, even when external political and 
military conditions changed for the worse and (ultimately) the Athenian empire 
fell, it did not seem appropriate to seek solace by recollecting that victory. The 
war with Persia had passed out of the iconographic mythology of ceramic 
decoration in the first place because self-congratulation ceased to seem so im- 
portant and it was not going to return because relations with Persia had become 
too much part of the matter of fact real world. 

In the end this is probably the key fact. The degree of alienation from Persia 
was very ambiguous and became more so as time passed. The closer one stood to 
the problems and conditions of the real world, the less point there was in 
regarding Persia as anything but just one more player in that world. Obsessively 
exploring and stressing ethnographic differences was simply a waste of time. 
Such prejudice as existed could be exploited politically up to a point but it could 
not usefully be increased by recounting details of the differences between Athens 
and Persia. There was too widespread a connivance in low level imitation of 
things Persian and in envy of Persian truphe for anyone to have much interest in 
denouncing it in those terms. This is why it is the subversives (comic poets in 
some moods, but most particularly post-Socratic philosophers), not the suppor- 
ters of prevailing ideology, who will reach for Persian colour and Persian detail 
and will do it not to reinforce existing Athenian beliefs through contrast, but as a 
means of highlighting failures in Athenian culture and politics. In an article 
published in 1992 but written in the early 1980s, David Francis asserted that 
classical Athenians obviously must have known much more about Persia than we 
ever can and he drew an analogy with western knowledge of Cold War Russia. 
Perhaps conditions in America were different, but it seems to me that he greatly 
overestimates the extent of the latter (and this in a world with a glut of informati- 
on), and I am fairly sure that he does the same with the former. Most Athenians 

82 For more on this topic see Tuplin (forthcoming [a]) 

E. General Observations 


knew a few cliches about Persia. Cliches were all they needed, and cultural 
arrogance inclined them against searching for more out of mere curiosity. Whether 
this is a better or worse state of mind than that which produced Ctesias and his 
successors is a nice judgement which (for the moment) I shall not try to make. 









The location of places mentioned in the Fortification archive is a complicated 
task dependent on systematic analysis of the bureaucratic inter-connections of 
people, places and seals. Hallock only produced rather sketchy statements on the 
matter, and the sole thorough-going account to date is that in Koch 1990. (Even 
this is almost entirely limited to treatment of published texts.) This is a work 
whose style of exposition, though necessarily complex, tends to conceal both the 
amount of labour that went into its creation and the different degrees of certainty 
in the details of the eventual reconstruction; and without a parallel amount of 
labour it is impossible to be sure how reliable the results are. Inevitably, however, 
it must serve as a point of rerence. Koch divides the region covered by the archive 
into six areas (the same system is used in entries in Hinz & Koch 1987), and it is 
to these that bracketed Roman numerals refer in what follows. (A bracketed 
question mark following a place name indicates that Koch has not assigned that 
place to one of her six areas.) 

The documents referring to partetas can be divided into two main categories, 
(1) CI documents and (2) other documents. I shall discuss each category in turn. 

1. The CI documents which mention partetas fall into three groups. 

A. Documents relating to Hapruma, Kutkus, Mutrizas, Saurakkas, Mamakas, 
Tammukan/Kabas all share use of PFS 60 on the left edge and either PFS 34 (in 
year 22) or PFS 102 (in years 23, 24) on other surfaces. There are various other 
connections: Hapruma (155), Kutkus (153), Saurakkas (150-1, 154) and Mutri- 
za§ (152) are linked by reference to the estate of Suttezza (where deposited 
commodities are said to be going to be used); Tammukan, Kutkus and Saurakkas 
appear in a journal relating to grain supplied by Suttezza (V-534), and Suttezza is 
also individually connected as apportioner with Kutkus (520, 523, 637, 638, G- 
1244), Tammukan (481) and Mutrizas (640); Kutkus (150-1, 154: years 22-23) 
and Saurakkas (153: year 22) share a Jfcar-maker named Karakka, who is also a 
grain-supplier at Kutkus in 637 (year 21) and G-1244. 1 

Koch sees Hapruma, Kutkus, Saurakkas and Mutrizas as a geographical 
group centring on Tammukan. This is clearly essentially correct, and there is no 
reasonable ground for excluding Mamakas from the group. 2 In terms of Koch's 

Of the other kar-makcrs Lrdamana (MutrizaS) and Sippuka (Hapruma) are otherwise un- 
known, while HasSidada (Tammukan & Kabas) appears as a sesame-supplier in G-1654 
(year 23, Tammukan). The name Bakaparna (tar-maker at KutkuS) recurs at various 
apparently unrelated places but always at dates earlier (sometimes much earlier) than its 
attestation at KutkuS, so there is unlikely to be a (useful) connection. 
PFS 34 also appears at BaktiS (PF 169-75 [year 22], Fort.707 [year 22], Cl-0024 [year 22], 
a site which Hallock (1977: 132), Sumner (1986: 26) and Koch (1980: 1 15f, 1990) agree is 
to the north-west of Persepolis (area V). No one comments on any oddity in the seal 



system Tammukan is in area III and somewhat remote from Persepolis. She offers 
no actual geographical location, and refers without comment to Hallock's sugge- 
stion of Cahak, a site some 125 km. east of Persepolis (1978: 115). Sumner's 
alternative idea of Arsenjan (1986: 00), a mere 40 km east of Persepolis, was 
presumably not known to her at the time of writing, and is in any case based on an 
unwise inference that PFa30 demonstrates Tammukan to be within a day's 
journey of Matezzis (a town immediately adjacent to Persepolis). 

B. Here we have six places in a conjunction of sub-groups. 

B.l Barasba [I], 3 Madana [I], Murkaziya [III], Nupistas [?] 4 share use of PFS 
260 = 314 on various surfaces. 5 

B.2 Murkaziya [III] [year 24], Kandukka [?] [year 23], Nupistas [?] [years 
23-24], Upirizza [?] [year 22?] share use of PFS 153 on I.e. (and occasionally u.e. 
at Nupistas). 

There must be a presumption that these places are all in a relatively tight 
geographical area, though two qualifications to the pattern need to be noted, (a) 
Madana is normally assumed to be another form of the more common Matannan, 
but there are also C-l texts from Matannan in years 22-25 with seals 8, 13 and 
206. One possibility is that Madana [sic] is after all not same as Matannan. 
Another, and preferable, one is that in the course of year 22 Matannan = Madana 
is successively part of two different administrative groupings, one associated 
with PFS 260 = 314, the other with PFS 8,13 and 206. This scenario would argue 
that Madana = Matannan was on the edge of partetas group B.l. (b) There are CI 
documents at Nupistas which use seals other than 153 and 260 = 314 (albeit ones 
which Hallock was only able to identify negatively). These occur in year 23 (in 
the midst of the 'standard' pattern) and year 27 (well after the attestation of the 
standard pattern, though at a time when PFS 153 is still being used). Again this 
may indicate that Nupistas lies on the edge between groups, but is P^bably not 
enough seriously to dissociate it from Murkaziya, Upirizza and Kandukka. ^ 

We may suggest therefore that Barasba (I), Murkaziya (III), Nupistas (?), 
Kandukka (?), and Upirizza (?) are closely associated, and that they should be 
envisaged as being fairly close to Persepolis itself. One of the sites is already 
assigned to area I by Koch, NupiStas possibly should be (cf. note 4) and Koch 
maps Murkaziya on the northern extremity of her area III, apparently indepen- 


that its use in the region around Tammukan in year 22 was unusual. In years 23-24 it 

effectively replaced by PFS 102. V-2493 which 

3 Location of BaraSba in Area I is confirmed by H-0818, ^Wmov 
underline the evidence of PF 658-^59 that Pamaka who received sheep from Harbezza 
Barasba in 19/3 was at or near Persepolis at the time. rtrrthah i v to be identified 

4 Hinz & Kochl987IabelNupistts^saream^ 

as NaqS-i Rustam, in which case it is not south-east of ^-^ -, n0 
Perhaps the III is a misprint Koch 1990 -0"* ^ remains 

longer true that the place is only attested in year 24, but the avauaoie 

unhelpful as to location. Miirkaziva- r rvear 24]. Nupistas: all 

5 Barasba: u.e., I.e. [year 22]. Madana: I.e. [year 22]. Murkaziya. r. L ye 
surfaces at one time or another in years 22-24. 

;^4&.\ ■■V''. $'■■">■ s.-.'iir.'i'-.'.'jf . 



(: i 




dently of the argument being advanced here. 6 Madana = Matannan is at least 
partially associated with the group. Koch seems to put it variously in areas I and 
V, which accords entirely with the general run of evidence and the particular 
parts of it under examination here. Since PFS 8, 13 and 206 have associations 
with Kaupirris (V) and Kurra (V) (to the north-west of Persepolis) we should 
assume that Madana was on the northern edge of partetas group B. 1. There seems 
to be no reason why the whole of group B could not have been situated more or 
less within sight of the palace terrace. 

C. Three partetas names from C-l documents remain to be discussed, viz 
Abbadaras [?] and Aptudaras [?], which have the same seals as one another and 
are presumably identical; and Akkuban [IV], of which Hallock says only that the 
left edge seal is not PFS 149, 153 or 307, while the upper edge one is unidentified. 

The associations of Abbadaras seem to be with the outer edge of area m 7 
while Hinz & Koch 1987 s.v. locate Akkuban in the NE extremity of IV, close t'o 
Appistapdan (cf. below) and Persepolis. This looks correct and is in conformity 
with further unpublished material. 8 Once again, therefore, we could be dealing 
with a place within sight of the Persepolis terrace. 

(2) Among partetas attested in documents from categories other than CI, 
Persepolis and Pasargadae present, of course, no problems of location. Nor does 

6 The only reference in Koch simply notes that Murkaziya shares an official with Urandus 
[III] (1990: 90). There is now more material about Murkaziya. (1) PFS 50 and 94, which 
appear on C6-453 (a text dealing with Murkaziya) recur at Parsaras (285) [I], Harrakran 
(288, C6-0395) [II], Shiraz (290) [II], Kuknaka (D-0373, D-2140) [V], Hunar (2026) [VI]. 
(Koch uses this seal-pattern as a means of assigning Harrakran to area II, without explaining 
why it could not assign it to I or V.) (2) W-1011 records a total of grain provided at 
Murkaziya, and also mentions grain in Shiraz [II], Harrakran [II], Kuknaka [V]. (3) V-260 
records transfer of a commodity from Kuknaka [V] (supplier: Datapparna) to Shiraz [II], 
Murkaziya, Matannan [I/V], Parsaras [I], Mar(r)a (?). (4) Salamanna, the apportioner who 
appears on C6-453, is also attested in this or other roles at Matannan [I/V] and Kuknaka 
[V]. There is clearly a pattern here. Notice that Koch opts to map Kuknaka at the end of area 
V nearest to Persepolis/Madana. This is logical given that the connections of supply officer 
Datapparna are with Persepolis [I], Matezzis [I], Tennuku [I], Rakkan [I], Hadaran [I], 
Harbaziya [I]. One may add that W-2368 records fruit at Kuknaka and Matannan and that 
W-1483 (a wine text) mentions Shiraz [II], Parsaras [I] and Kuknaka. There is thus ample 
reason to bring Murkaziya as close to Persepolis as we want. 

7 Comparison of G-62 (Abbadaras) and PF 490 (AnindaziS), which both involve Yasnukka 
and share a seal, suggests an association of Abbadaras and Anindazis (though the texts are 
four years apart); and F-986 and G-243 (which also share a seal) associated Yasnukka with 
Kursamus. Hinz & Koch 1987 s.w. locate Anindazis and Kursamus (alias Kurasmus. 
Kurtimis, Kurtipis: Koch 1990: 81f) in area HI; Koch maps them in the bottom right hand 
corner of the area. 

8 i , o£? n £ I,U5 (IV: tentativel y P ,aced at Goyum, NNW of Shiraz by Hallock, though Sumner 
1986: 23 has it immediately south of Persepolis) sends supplies to Akkuban, Appistapdan 
[IV], Ukbakumas [IV], Tukras [III], Persepolis [I] (1941). 2. Akkuban provides grain to 

Ja i« m] W ° rkerS ^^ 15) (M ~ 2628 >- 3 - Akkuban provides wine to Appistapdan [IV] 
(A-1581) (21/3). 4. Wine rations are received by ZiSSawiS (a personage always associated 
wuh Persepolis) in successive months (18/9, 18/10) at Akkuban and Appistapdan (H- 

* ■) 




! i ! 

Parsaras, since PF 1815 and its close duplicate T-1368 explicitly locate this 
partetas at Persepolis. 9 The partetas called Vispasiyatis (PT 49, 59) shares use of 
Cypriot workers with (a) two texts from the Treasury archive (PT 54,55), (b) Ll- 
1612, an unrealized partetas text, (c) Ll-1409, a (probably) unrealized text, 
similar to Ll-1612, but not mentioning apartetas. Of these (a) definitely relates 
to Persepolis, while (b) and (c) share with one another a supplier (Masdayasna) 
and a recipient (Dausakama/Tamsakama) both of whom are also associated with 
Persepolis in various ways. 10 It is thus likely that Vispasiyatis and the unlocated 
partetas are at/near Persepolis. The partetas of Ammasis is described as being at 
a place variously read at Murdarizza or Hardarizza (PT 1963-9; cf. PT 49). This 
appears to be unbeatable, and although a much higher proportion of the (small) 
Treasury archive than of the (very large) Fortification one deals with payment for 
people at Persepolis it is hard to feel sure that this creates a statistical presumpti- 
on in favour of placing otherwise unknown sites near the capital.' Misdukba is 
located in area III in Hinz & Koch 1987 s.v., but in area I in Koch 1990: 241 Ihe 
run of evidence is such as to make this uncertainty understandable, but the tacts 
that (i) Parnaka gets sheep rations from Harbezza over a 15 day period I in Year 19 
at Misdukba and Rakkan (I) (H-0475), supplies wine to Persepolis (I), Rakkan 
(I), Mandumatis (IV) and Raduma (IB) (V-2492) and (hi) has a 8""^" 
Usaya whose name also appears at Matannan (I/V) in M-1238, Cl-1685 and Ci- 
2450 certainly entitle one to select a location in the Persepol. s ^Finally, 
PFa33 records tree-seedlings at five places, the first three (Appis *Pf" ™j 
Pirdubatti [?] and Tikranus lW partetas sites, the other two (Hahbbas [7 ^nd 
Tukras [III]) not. Hallock 1978: 1 16 explicitly suggested te^™*£to* 
one another presumably because the material from them is al o be pportio ned 
by one Nabapirruna (otherwise untraceable) and perhaps became taksaj § be 
found between Appistapdan and Tukras (both ^^ 
PF 1941) and between Appistapdan and Tito™^ 1 ^"^ 1 ^^^ 
red at Persepolis [I], Pasargadae [I], Andarant, [I], ^^^o^- 
two other places whose names are too badly preserved .^ "JfflSp 1947) 
des the places just noticed Appistapdan *»^™*™% SJfcr Ln 
and Matezzis (I) (V-2493). Neither it nor Tukras OJ^jf Very 
Persepolis, and I fancy that the same goes for the other sites. 

...... »„t i?RO and T-948, one referring to workers 

9 This is also confirmed by the parallel between T-1280 and 

at Persepolis, the other at Parsaras. Matezzj5 and w _ 22 7 1 shows 

10 Masdayasna: at least 18 texts connect him witn rers^P ^ ^^ [m] md some sUes , n 
that he had an estate thereabouts. He is also conn Dau sakama / Tamsakama: 
area V, none of which need be very J-^S (1815 , 

apportioner for workers at Persepolis (118A w * } Hiran [in] , Kamenus 

1 1 Known locations outside Persepolis •**»*<*> ™ zzan [ffl], Shiraz [II], Tukras [III]. 
[IV], Marsaskas [III], Matezzis [I], NarezzaS liiij, ^^ more otherwIse 
Both Shiraz and Narezzas (Niriz) are fairly d""^™" 

unknown sites, which technically could be "J^™! ^ identi f y ing Zarnuya, the seed- 

12 The idea that Halibbas is in area VI appears to aep pp n()7 whjch is not a 
keeper there, with the Sarnuya who feeds cattle at Ibat I J ^ ^^ illeBitimate , 
cogent enough proposition to spoil the pattern. 

■ at Ibat IV1J in ri i.v.., - 

: It is tempting but perhaps illegitimate to 





■tit ■*• 



< ; ? 

■ M J 

! !*' 

: Ui 


* " t 

The upshot is that, apart from the group around Tamukkan and Abbadaras/ 
Aptudaras on the edge of area HI, the recorded partetas tend to be fairly close to 
rersepolis. 1,1 


S^wis^oT X? A nJ"P d » is a P 1 ** with unusually well-paid scribes (PF 1947: 

^^x^tt&zz* and a g0,dsmith (T - 2515) 

Son (i.e a iV) With ^ StatemCnt " K0Ch ,992: 264 that the * cluster * *e south west 

! !' 


Akurgal, E., 1976, Die Kunst Anatohens (Berlin 

Albenda, P. 1972, "Ashurnasirpal lis Lion Hunt .JNES * Ufi ™ s ,,,, fiA50 ^ 224: 

Albenda, P.1976/1977, "Landscape bas-rel.efs in the Bit H.Ian. 

49-72, 225: 29-48. vhn^ahad TAssur 3.3] (Malibu). 

Albenda, P., 1983, A Mediterranean Escape from^abadi^ U ^.^ 

Altaian, H., 1972, "Uber die Beste Erziehung: zum Dialog KalUas 

Philolog. 116:213-52. » d/-h 68/69- 36-74. 

Amandry, P., 1944/5, "Petits objects de Delphes BCH £8/69. 3o- 

Amandry, P., 1958, '^^^^ A t^c^o Pedon", EVO 11: «M». 

Ampolo, C. & Bresciani, E., 1988, Psammetico eu 

Anderson, J.K., 1961, Ancient Greek Horsemanshtp^^)- 

Andrae, W., 1907, "Das Festhaus", MDOG 33: 2*-"- 

Andrae, W., 1938, Das Wiedererstandene Assur OBoUnJ- 

Andrewes, A., 1961, "Thucydides and the *TTj%?Zta* City (Athens). 

Andronikos, M. 1984, Vergina: the Royal Tombs ^^AncvrtJ^^ ^ ^^ 

Arcari, E. 1989, "Politica estera di Nabucodnoso in Palestin 

Asheri,D., ™^*^«£Z£$^M Su.tanTe k ke»,OpA rt .13:29- 

Astrom, P. & Nikolaou, K., 1980, Lead sung um 

Atkinson, K., 1972, "A hellenistic ^"^"^^"^pSin Karlgeorghis 1986: 369-82. 
Aupert, P., 1986, "Amathonte, le Proche-Onent et 1 Egyp 
Aynard, J.-M., 1957, Le Prisme du louvre AO 1939 (Pans). 

Babelon, E.,1893, Us Verses Achememdes <*"»* 52] (Berlin) . 
Bachmann, W., 1927, Felsreliefs in Assyrien W^^mM Ki 
Balcer, J.M., 1977, "The Athenian ep.skopos and the Achae 


Barguei, P., 1962, Le Templed' Amon Re e ( C ^ trepresentati ons of Persians", in A.V.Pope, A 
Barnett, R.D., 1967, "Assyria and Iran, the earliest v 

Survey of Persian Art (Oxford): 2997-3007 
Barnett, RJ>' 1975, Catalogue ^f ^djyonesi^n^ 

Barnett, R.D., 1976, Sculptures from ^^%/ urnas irapli 11 TiglatH-Pdeser III and 
Barnett, R.D. & Faulkner M., 1962, bcwpi* 

Esarhaddon (London). t r> n i n re Reliefs (London). , xMWmr 64: 

Barnett, R.D. & Forman W., 1960, Assyn ^«* MUM i _ mrmTS MlT ror 64. 

Basch, L. 1978, "Le navire MNS et autres notes voy g 

99-123. p , aIlx dans l-Egypte ancienne: le jardin botamqu 

Baum, N., "Inventaire et groupement vegetaux dans 

ThutmosisIir,Cd£ 133:60-65 
Baurain, C, 1980, "Kinyras", BCH 104: ?^»* BCH 10 5: 361-72. 
Baurain, C, 1981a, "Un autre nom P™*™ ? „*„,,,».&, Grammar 

Baurain, C, 1981b, "Kinyras et Keramos AC 5^ ^ ^ Phomlkel a Gra 

Baurain, C, 1992, "L'ecriture syllable a Chypre inscription s», Ac« 

(Louvain): 389-424. distribution of Cypriote syUabic inscnptio 

Bazemore, G.B., 1992, The g^ogr^ 
Cypria III (Goteborg): 63-96. 











Beaux, N., 1990, Le Cabinet de Curiosites de Thutmosis III (Leuven). 

Benveniste, E., 1954, "Elements perses en aram^en d'Egypte", JA 282: 297-310. 

Benveniste, E., 1958, "Notes sur les tablettes elamites de Persepolis", JA 246: 49-65. 

Bigwood, J.M., 1978, "Ctesias' Description of Babylon', AJAH 3: 32-52. 

Bikai, P., 1987, The Phoenician Pottery of Cyprus (Nicosia). 

Bikai, P., 1991, "Cyprus and Phoenicia: Literary evidence for the early Iron Age", in Festschrift 

Karageorghis (Nicosia): 241-8. 
Billows, R., 1990, Antigonos the One-Eyed (Berkeley). 
Bing, J.D., 1971, "Tarsus: a forgotten colony of Lindos", JNES 30: 99-109. 
Bing, J.D., 1985, "Sissu/Issus and Phoenicians in Cilicia", AJAH 10: 97-123 [publ. 1994]. 
Birge, D.E., 1982, Sacred Groves in Ancient Greece (Berkeley [Ph.D.]). 
Bisi, A.M., 1985, "Origine e diffusione del culto cirenaico di Zeus Ammon", in Cyrenaica in 

Antiquity [BAR Int.Ser.236] (Oxford): 307-17. 
Bivar, A.D., 1975a, "Religious subjects on Achaemenid seals", in J.Hinnels (ed.) Mithraic 

Studies (Manchester): 90-105. 
Bivar, A.D., 1975b, "Mithras and Mesopotamia", ibid. 275-289. 
Bivar, A.D., 1985, "Achaemenid Coins, Weights and Measures", Cambridge History of Iran I 

(Cambridge): 610-39. 
Blass, F., 1887, Attische Beredsamkeit (Leipzig). 
Boardman, J., 1964, Greeks Overseas (London). 
Boardman, J., 1968, Archaic Greek Gems (London). 

Boardman, J., 1970a, "Pyramidal Stamp Seals in the Persian Empire", Iran 8: 19-46. 
Boardman, J., 1970b, Greek Gems and Finger Rings (London). 
Boardman, J., 1975, Intaglios and Rings (London). 
Boardman, J, 1989a, Greek vases in the Getty Museum 4 (Malibu) 47-69. 
Boardman, J., 1989, "The Cypriot contribution to archaic Greek glyptic", in Tatton-Brown 1989: 

Boardman, J., 1990, "Al Mina", OJA 9: 169-90. 
Boardman, J. & Kurtz, D„ 1971, Greek Burial Practices (London). 
Boedekker, D., 1988, "Protesilaus and the end of Herodotos' Histories", CA 7: 30-48. 
Bondi, S.F., 1990, "I Fenici in Erodoto", in Entretiens Fond.Hardt 35: 255-300. 
Bonnet, C, 1990, "Les Strangers dans le corpus 6pigraphique ph£nicien de Chypre", RDAC: 

Borchhardt, J., 1968, "Epikorische, grako-persisch beinflussten Reliefs in Kilikien", Ist.Mitt. 

18: 168-211. 
Borchhardt, J., 1976, Die Bauskulptur des Heroons von Limyra (Berlin). 
Borger, R., 1956, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons (Graz). 

Borthwick, E., 1967, "Two notes on the Birds of Aristophanes", CR n.s.17: 248-50. 
Bothmer, D.von, 1984, "A Greek and Roman Treasure", Bull Met.MusA2A: 24-45. 
Botta, P. & Flandin, E., 1849/50, Monuments de Ninive (Paris). 
Boucharlat, R., et al., 1979, Le Palais d'Artaxerse a Shaour [= Cahiers de la Delegation 

Francaise en Iran vol. 10]. 
Boyce, M., 1982, History of Zoroastrianism II (Leiden). 
Brandenstein, W„ 1964, "Der persische Satz bei Aristophanes Acharn.100", WZK Sud- und 

Ostasiens 8: 43-50. 
Braun, T.R.G., 1982, "Greeks in the Near East; Greeks in Egypt", Cambridge Ancient History 

IIL3: 1-56. 
Bresciani, E., 1987, "Fenici in Egitto", EVO 10: 69-87. 
Briant, P. 1988, "Le nomadisme du Roi", IA 23: 253-73. 
Briant, P. 1989, "Histoire et Ideologic: les Grecs et la decadence perse", Melanges Leveque II 

(Paris): 33^7. 
Briant, P., 1991, "Chasses royales Mace^Joniennes et Chasses Perses", DHA 17: 211-55. 
Briant, P., 1996, Dans les Pas des Dix-Mille: Peuples etpays du Proche-Orient vus par un Grec 






Brintoann, J., 1968, Political History ^^^^^smm (ed.). Daidali- 
Brinkmann, J., 1989, "The Akkadian words 'Ionia and , 
kon (Wauconda, 111.): 53-72. ice in- 197-219 

Buchholz, H.G., 1973, "Tamassos", AA: 295-388. 
Buchholz, H.G., 1974, "Tamassos", AA: 5 ^\ 

Buchholz, H.G., 1978, "Tamassos 1974-6 ,M. 55 "^ p apadopou lo S 1985: 229-70. 

Buchholz, H.G., 1985, "Deutsche Ausgrabungen m J«s ^^J m , 85 _ 128 
Buchholz, H.G., 1991, "Der Gott Hammon und £^^ ,£,, dehors de la Phen.c.e", 

Buhl, M,L., 1991, "Les -«»I*^r , r5S23S5to>«« 1 - 
Atti Secondo Congresso Internztonale ^^Lm^^)- ^ 

Bunnens, G., 1983a, "Tyr et la mer", Studl ^ Q ^ s ^ ace occupee par la Phenice dans 

Bunnens, G., 1983b, "Considerat.onsgeograph.ques sur mp ^^ 

Texpansion de 1'empire assyrien \ af^TfaStfon. royales assyriennes", Stud* 

Bunnens, G., 1985, "Le luxe phenic.en d apres les 

Phoenicia III (Louvain):121-133- ^ m0K & ^ndon). 

Burford, A., 1993, Land and Labor in the Greek HWM 

Burkert, W., 1992, The Orientalizing Revolution (Berice.ey, 

Burn, L., 1987, The Meidias Painter (Oxford). 

Cahn,H.&Gerin,D., 1988, "ThemisWcles at ^f^^CW^TfO. 

Cahn, H. & Mannsperger, D., 1991, ''^^uZcontre Assyriologiaue (Brussels), 184- 

Calmeyer, P., 1970, "Federkranze und Mus.k , XVii 

Calmeyer, P., 1979, "Fortuna - Tyche - ™™^Z Z— "s * Achamenidenreich", 
Calmeyer, P., 1985, "Die Verbre.tung des west.ramsc 

AMP 18: 125-44. Die statistisehe Landkarten des Persene.ehs. Nachtr 

Calmeyer, P., 1987, "Zur Genese ... VIII. D.e 

ge und Korrekturen", AMP 20: 13 ^ 1 *- . ,. AM p 21: 27-52. nnlfIime nte", 

Calmeyer, P., l^^'^^^^^wA die achamenid.sche Dokumente 
Calmeyer, P., 1990, "Die sogenannte funfte Satr p 

Trans. 3: 109-130. Perse oolis Treasury", JNES 24: 167-92. 

Cameron, G., 1963, "New texts ^ ^^ Festsc hrift Garelli f"****^ 
Cardaseia,G., i991,"La C einturedeParysaUs ,m Greek Relie f Sculpture <?r*n*W 

Carroll-Spilleeke, M., 1985, ^^Z^Griechische Garten C**"* > 

Carroll-Spilleeke, M.. 1989, Kepos: ^J"^ Amike bis zum **<* Kge, 
Canoll-Spilleeke, M., 1992, Der ^en von der ^.^ Athens" >"P^edg. 2 
Cartledge.P., 1991, "Fowl play: a '"^JX w. PoUUcs and SoaO, (fi^^ } X: ^ 

&ic.Todd,No™*.i»'^ . « 

Cassio, A., 1985, "Old Persian Mar.ka, P ^^^ &amt 

4 2- . • M«nti d'Oro: Ar.AcA.80f, Ctes. r. 

Cassio, A., 1991, "Re di Pers.a su. Mont. phenici enne", Studia 

2: 137-41 . . ac . e Kition i l'epoque de la dynast.e p 

Caubet, A., 1986, "Us sanctuaues de K.W) 
Phoenicia IV (Louvain): 153-80- 





*•« ! 

D : 

c*h i 

m ! 



Caubet, A. & Pic, M„ 1982, "Une culte hathorique a Kition - Bamboula", in Archeologie au 

Levant = Recueil Saidah (Lyon): 237-49. 
Chavane, M.J., 1978, Salamine de Chypre (Paris), 81-4. 
Chavane, M„ 1982, Vases de Bronze du Musee de Chypre (Paris). 
Chiera, M., 1987, "Fenici e Cartaginesi a Menff , RSF 15: 127-131 
Christou, D., 1986, "Greek and Near-eastern links with Cyprus in the Iron Age...", in Karageorg- 

his 1986: 330-40. 
Coldstream, N., 1977, Geometric Greece (London). 
Coldstream, N., 1989, "Early Greek visitors to Cyprus and the eastern Mediterranean", in 

Tatton-Brown 1989: 90-96. 
Collombier, A.M., 1975, Chypre et le Monde Grec a VEpoque Classique (Toulouse). 
Collombier, A.M., 1991, "Organisation du territoire et pouvoirs locaux dans Tile de Chypre a 

T6poque perse", Trans .4:21-44. 
Collombier, A.M., 1992, "Ecritures et soci6tes a Chypre a Tage du Fer", in C.Baurain (ed.) 

Phoinikeia Grammata (Louvain): 425-448. 
Corbett, P., 1961, "A vase of the Altamura Painter", BMQ 24: 97-9. 
Cornelius, P., 1989, "The lion in the art of the ancient near east", JNWSL 15: 53-86. 
Courtils, J., 1991, De Anatolia Antiqua, Paris. 

Crane, G., 1993, "Politics of consumption and generosity", CP 88: 117-36. 
Crawford, D., 1971, Kerkeosiris: an Egyptian Village in the Ptolemaic Period (Cambridge). 
Crouwel, J., 1991, "Terracotta Chariot Models - Cypriote or Phoenician?" in Vandenabeele & 

Laffineurl991: 115-27. 
Crouwel, J. & Tatton-Brown, V., 1988, "Ridden horses in iron age Cyprus", RDAC II: 77-86. 
Culican, W.D., 1991, "Phoenicia and Phoenician colonization", Cambridge Ancient History 

Curtis, J., 1986, Bronze -working centres of Western Asia Minor, W00-535 BC (London). 

Dalley, S., 1986a, "Neo-Assyrian textual evidence for bronzeworking centres", in Curtis 1986: 

Dalley, S., 1986b, "The god Salmu and the winged disk", Iraq 58: 85-101. 
Dalley, S., 1993, "Nineveh after 612 BC", AfO 20: 134-147. 
Dalley, S., 1994, "Nineveh, Babylon and the Hanging Gardens", Iraq 66: 45-58. 
Daly, L., 1980, "A Greek syllabic cypriot inscription from Sarafand", ZPE 40: 23-5. 
Daumas, M., 1985, "Aristophane et les Perses", REA 87: 289-306. 
Davesne, A., Lozmacheur, H. & Lemaire, A., 1987, "Le site archeologique de Meydancikkale", 

CRAh 359-86. 
Davidson, J., 1993, "Fish, sex and revolution in Athens", CQ n.s.43: 53-66. 
Davis, W.M., 1980, "The Cypriots at Naucratis", Gdtt.MiszAU 7-19. 
Decaudin, N., 1987, Antiquites chypriotes dans les collections francaises (Paris). 
Decleva Caizzi, F., 1966, Antisthenis Fragmenta (Milan). 
Deller, K., 1987, "Assurbanipal in der Gartenlaube", Bag.Mitt. 18: 229-38. 
Dentzer, J.M., 1982, Le Motif du Banquet Couchi (Istanbul) 
Dentzer, J.M., Villeneuve, F. & Larche\ F., 1983, "Iraq el Emir: Excavations at the Monumental 

Gateway", in A.Hadid (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan I (Amman), 

Des Gagniers, J., 1972, "Une fete champetre sur une amphore d'Amathonte", RA: 53-56. 
Descat, R., 1992, "Le paradis du Tissapherne", DATA 1: 7 
Desideri, P. & Jasink, A.M., 1990, Cilicia (Turin). 
Destrooper-Georgiades, A„ 1987, "La Phenicie et la Chypre a l'epoque achemenide: temoigna- 

ges numismatiques", Studia Phoenicia V (Louvain), 339-55. 
Detienne, M., 1991, Les Savoirs de Vtcrire (Lille). 

De Vries, K., 1977, "Attic pottery in the Achaemenid Empire", A3 A 81: 544-8. 
Diakonoff, I., 1969, Ancient Mesopotamia (Moscow). 




Dietrich M 1969/70, "Neue Quellen zur Geschichte Babyloniens IH", WdO 5: 176-90. 

Dikaios,'p. 1953, Guide to the Cyprus Museum <^^*^ico«a). 

Dion P -E , 1992, "Les KTYM du Tel Arad. Grecs ou Phemciens? , Rev.Bibl. 99. 7U-9 /. 

Dover, K.J., 1963, "Notes on Aristophanes' Acharnians", Maia 15: 6-25. 

nrivM- O 1957 A ramaic Documents (Oxford). „,„.» 

KjKl. "Some limestone heads from Cyprus in the Liverpool publtc museums , 

T A A A 1 R* ^0—^8 

Dugand, J.E.,'l978, "A propos de SaUmV, **^*£*%^ Y ^^ 

Dupont-Sommer, A., 1974, "Les Pheniciens a Chypre , RDAC. 76-94. 

During, I., 1941, Herodicus the Cratetean (Stockholm) 

During, I., 1941, Aristotle's Protrepticus (Gottborg). 

Dussaud, R. 1927, La Topographie Wstorique de la Syne (Pans). 

Edel, E., 1978, "Amasis and Nebukadrezzar", Cdtt.Misz. _29: 13-20. 

Edwards, CM., "Aphrodite on a Ladder" Hespena » »"• y Andent History 

Edwards, I.E.S., 1982, "Egypt from the 22nd to the 24th dynasty , Lamar g 

Egetmeyer, M., 1993, "Cyprisch za", Kadmos 32: 145-58. 

Eilers, W., 1971, Semiramis (Vienna) nomination assvro-babylonienne a la 

Elayi, J., 1978, "L'essor de la Phenicie et le passage de la domination assyro 

domination perse", Ba«W.W««. 9: 25-38 d ' Assurbanipal", 

Elayi, J., 1983, "Les cites pheniciennes et 1 empire assynen p 


40-7. . . „,;„,„, dans les cites pheniciennes au Ve 

Elayi, J., 1985a, "La baisse des importations chypriotes dans P 

siecle", Arch.Cypria 1 : 65-7. .,„;„;„„„« et r empire assyrien sous la regne de 

Elayi, J., 1985b, "Relations entre les cites pheniciennes et emp 

Sennacherib", Semitica 34: 19-26 ^ ^ of Sargon r , Sumer 42: 

Elayi, J.,1986a, "Phoenician cities and the Assyrian c v 

Elayi^b, "Le roi et la religion dans * **£J^ MA S 36/7: 130-5. 
Elayi, J., 1986/87, "Importations grecques at Tell Kaze USimy * _ 

Elayi, J., 1987a, Recherches sur les dtesphemcwne s[-A I™ P ^ y (Louvain): 249 _ 
Elayi, J., 1987b, "Al Mina sur l'Oronte a l'epoque perse , 

ElayU., 1988a, "Sexploitation des ^^^^^^9: 549-555. 
Elayi, J., 1988b, "L« inscription bilingue de I*« <££ " ^ M 23 : 275-322. 
Elayi, J., 1988c, "Les sarcophages I^^^ZS^n", DHA 16 (2): 93-1 13. 
Elayi, J., 1990, "Les cites pheniciennes entre liber ^g^ Mti del Secondo Congresso 
Elayi, J., 1991a, "La domination perse sur les citfs phftu 

Internationale degli Studi Fenici ^^^nioiens et nord-syriens sous 1 empire 
Elayi, J., 1991b, "Deux ateliers de coroplastes nor P 

perse", M 26: 181-216. . ^ ph6n i c iennes", in Hackens 1992. 

Elayi, J., 1992, "Le P^^^XtlJ^, Or.An, 18: 59-75. 
Elayi, J. & Cavigneaux, A., 1979, Sargon i 

Eph'al, I. 1984, The Ancient Arabs Q«^>' military ter ms", EI 20: 198*. 
Eph'al, I., 1989, "Lexical Notes on some ^2' J ntatio ns in Pharaonic Egypt . JEA 80. 
Eyre, C.J., 1994, "The water regime for orchards 
















Fauth, W., 1979, "Der konigliche Gartner im Paradeisos", Persica 8: 1-54. 

Ferguson, W., 1938, "The Salaminioi of Heptaphylai and Sounion", Hesperia 7: 1-74. 

Fol, A. & Marazov, I., 1977, Thrace and the Thracians (London). 

Forrest, W.G., 1969, "Two chronographic notes", CQ n.s.19: 95-106. 

Fox, M.V., 1985, The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs (Madison). 

Francis, E.D., 1980, "Greeks and Persians: the art of hazard and triumph", in D.Schmandt- 
Besserat, Ancient Persia: the Art of an Empire (Malibu), 53-86. 

Francis, E.D., 1992, "Oedipus Achaemenides", AJP 113: 333-58. 

Frankenstein, S., 1979, "The Phoenicians in the Far West: a function of Neo- Assyrian imperia- 
lism?", in Larsen 1979:283-296. 

Frankfort, H., 1970, Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient (London). 

Frankovitch,, 1966, "Problems of Achaemenid Architecture", East & West 16: 201-60. 

Freedy, K.S. & Redford, D., "Dates in Ezekiel in relation to Biblical, Babylonian and Egyptian 
sources", JAOS 90:462-85. 

Friedrich, J„ 1921, "Die altpersische Stelle in Aristophanes Acharnern v.100", IGF 39: 93-102. 

Friedrich, J., 1935/6, "Review of Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazkoi XXVII", Altor.Forsch. 10* 

Friedrich, J„ 1939, Kleine Beitrage zur churritischen Grammatik (Leipzig). 

Frost, H., 1973, "The offshore island harbour at Sidon", UNA 2: 75-94. 

Furley, W.D., 1988, "Die Adonis-Feier in Athen, 415 v.Chr.", Ktema 13: 13-20. 

Gadd, C.J., 1954, "Inscribed prisms of Sargon II from Nimrud", Iraq 16: 173-201. 

Gallery, T., 1978, "The gardens of Ancient Egypt", in D.Schmandt-Besserat (ed.), Immortal 

Egypt (Malibu): 43^9. 
Garbini, G., 1981, "Continuita ed innovazione nella religione fenicia", in La Religione Fenicia 

(Rome): 29^4. 
Garfinkel, Y., 1988, "The MLS HKRYSM in Phoenician inscriptions...", JNES 47: 27-34. 
Garland, R., 1982, "A first catalogue of Attic peribolos tombs", ABSA 11: 125-76. 
Garrison, M.B., 1991, "Seals and the elite at Persepolis", Ars Orient 21: 1-29. 
Gauer, W., 1990, "Penelope, Hellas und der Perserkonig", JDAI 105: 31-65. 
George, A.R., 1987, Babylonian Topographical Texts (Louvain). 
Ghirshman, R., 1964, Persia: from the Origins to Alexander the Great (London). 
Gill, D. & Vickers, M. 1990, 'Reflected Glory: pottery and precious metals in classical Greece', 

JDAI 105: 1-30 
Gjerstad, E.,1944, "The colonization of Cyprus in Greek legend", 0pArch3: 107-23. 
Gjerstad, E., 1979, "Phoenician colonization and expansion in Cyprus", RDAC: 230-54. 
Goldman, B., 1984, "Persian saddle blankets", StudJranM; 7-18. 
Gordon, C.H., 1938, "Dialect of Nuzu Tablets", Orientalia 27: 32-63, 215-32. 
Gothein, M., 1928, History of Garden Art (London). 
Goyon, J.G., 1969, "La statuette funeraire IE 84 de Lyon et le titre saite mr hw'.w-nswt"\ 

BIFA0 61: 159-71. 
Graham, A.J., 1986, "The historical interpretation of Al Mina", DHA 12: 51-65. 
Grainger, J.D., 1991, Hellenistic Phoenicia (Oxford). 

Gras, M., Rouillard, P. & Texidor, J., 1991, "The Phoenicians and Death", Beryt39; 127-76. 
Grayson, A.K., 1982, "Assyria: 934-745 BC", Cambridge Ancient History 2 III. 1 : 338-381. 
Grayson, A.K., 1991, "Assyria", Cambridge Ancient History 2 III.2.7 1—161. 
Graziani, S., 1978, "Su una interpretazione achemenide di Bes", AIUON 38 = n.s. 28: 52-61. 
Green, A.R.W., 1993, "The identity of King So of Egypt", JNES 52: 99-108. 
Griffith, F.LI., 1894, "The god Set...", PSBA 16: 87-91. 
Grimal, P., 1943, Les Jardins Romains (Paris). 

Grimal, P., 1957, "Le jardin de Lamos a Lesbos", Rev.Arch. 49: 211-14. 
Gunther, W„ 1971, "Didyma 1969/70: Inschriften", Ist.Mitt. 21: 45-108. 

H«tos T 1»2, H,mi,malq« « HiMire tconomiqK (Louvaii). 
H^—TSlS'L' U«» inn— » <*~ as ..Id** .. •* «™f»- 

E J^s^^ , ■^°^ h *--^*- fc " J,MP • ,, ~ , *" , ' 

new interpretation", in Papadopoulou 1985. 517-20. 
Harden, D., 1971, The Phoenicians (H^onds^rihl 

Hallock, R., 1978, "Selected F<> rtlfi f J "™* £ U J\ s Cambridge History of Iran II: 
Hallock, R., 1985, "The Evidence of the Persepolis Tablets , 

588-609. , . Traeedy at Athens", AJA 82: 371-83. 

Hammond, N. & Moon, W^TJ-^jJj " £i£ <»es Aristophanes", in Festschnft 
Hansen, O., 1956, "Zum persischen Vers 100 der Acn 

\7 • 1 *7*7 RO 

Haspeh, E?l936~A««c Black-Figure ^ th °i^ d , Egyptt », in E. van't Dack et al. (edd.), 

Heidel, A., 1956, "A new hexagonal P"™ °* *"££ ordre de sanctuaire", Unem* 23. 250- 
Helly,B., 1970, "A Larisa: bouleversements et 

*• „. , , he Biblical prophets and Hebrew ostraca from Arad , 

Heltzer, M., 1988, "Kition to the Bibbcal pr p 

RDAC: 1.167-72. . ^ Anatolia , the Kypros measure and Acnaeme 

Heltzer, M., 1991a, "Early relat.ons of Cyprus ana A 

nian land tax", RDAC: 157-62 a Jewish setuement in KiUon 

Heltzer, M., 1991b, "Phoenician ^^^f^Smdi Fenici (Rome): 503-9^ 

Atti del Secondo Congresso MernawmUfl «^ ^ 107: 28 £9. 

Hermary, A., 1983, "Deux tetes en f^T^Le trouve a Amathonte' , BCH 109. 
Herniary. A., 1985, "Un nouveau chap.teau hathonq 

708 . ntales et occidentales sur Hconograph.e des d.vm 

Hermary, A., 1986, "Influences onentales et 

chypriotes", in Karageorghisl986: 405- 0- „, Studia Phoemaa V. 375 

HermS, A., 1988, "Culte <f AjhrodJ A-thon ^ ^ ^ chypnote , 

Hermary, A., 1989a, "Temoignage des ao ^/p-ris) 

berg 1989: 180-198. Catalogue des Antiques *21 a Amathonte", 

Hermary, A., 1989b, Musiedulo^ . C**^ du sa „ctuaire d'Aphrodue 
Hermary, A. & O.Masson, 1990, Deux Stu<Ur an.5: 33- 

BCH 1 14: 187-214. ire et conceptions politique* , 

Herrenschmidt, C, 1976, "Des.gnat.on de 1 Emp 









Herrenschmidt, C, 1987, 'Notes sur la parents chez les Perses au debut de TEmpire achem^ni- 

de\ Achaemenid History II 53-67. 
Herrenschmidt, C, 1993, "Aggareion-Aggaros", DATA 2: 5. 
Heuzey, L., 1887, "Une etoffe chald^enne: le kaunakes", Rev.Arch. 9: 257-72. 
Hill, G., 1904, British Museum Catalogue of Coins: Cyprus (London). 
Hill, G., 1940, History of Cyprus I (London). 
Hinz, W., 1988, 'Grosskonig Darius und sein Untertan', Acta Iranica 28 [Festschrift Asmussen] 

(Leiden): 473-81. 
Hinz, W. & Koch, H., 1987, Elamisches Worterbuch (Berlin). 
Holbl, G., 1989, "Agyptische Kunstelementen im phonikischen Kulturkreis", Orientalia: 318— 

Homes-Frederiq, D. & Hennessy J.B., 1986/89, Archaeology of Jordan (Leuven). 
Hornblower, S., 1982, Mausolus (Oxford) 

Hugonot, J., 1989, Lesjardins dans VEgypte ancienne (Frankfurt). 
Hugonot, J., 1992, "Agyptische Garten", in Carroll-Spillecke 1992: 9^4. 
Husson, G., 1988, "Le paradis des delices (Genese 3,23-24)", REG 101: 64-73. 

Jacobsen, T. & Lloyd, S., 1935, Sennacherib's Acqueduct at Jerwan (Chicago). 

Jacobs, B., 1987, "Das chvarnah. Zum Stand der Forschung", MDOG 1 19: 215^6. 

James, T.G.H, 1991, "Egypt" in Cambridge Ancient History 2 111.2: 677-750. 

Jankowska, N.B., 1969, "Some problems of economy of the Assyrian Empire", in Diakonoff 

1969: 253-76. 
Jansen-Winkeln, K„ "Zur Schiffsliste aus Elelphantine", Gott.Misz. 109: 31-2. 
Jidejian, N., 1968, Byblos (Beirut). 
Joannes, F., 1991, "L'Asie Mineure meridionale d'apres la documentation cun&forme d'epoque 

neo-babylonienne", in Courtils 1991: 261-6. 
Jones, D., 1988, Glossary of ancient Egptian nautical titles and terms (London). 
Jourdain-Annequin, C, 1993, "Heracles-Melqart a Amrit?", Trans.6: 69-83. 

Kaiser, W. et al., 1975, "Stadt und Tempel von Elephantine", MDA1(K) 31: 39-84. 

Kagan, J., 1994, "An archaic Greek coin hoard from the Eastern Mediterranean and early 
Cypriot coinage", NC: 17-52. 

Kapera, Z., 1972, "Remarks on the early history of the Paphos kingdom, in Proceedings of the 
First Cyprological Congress (Nicosia), 1 1 1-9. 

Kapera, Z., 1972/3, "Was Ya-ma-ni a Cypriot?", Folia Orientalia 14: 207-18. 

Kaptan-Bayburtoglu, D., 1990, "A group of seal impressions on the bullae from Ergeli/Dasky- 
leion", EA 16: 15-27. 

Karageorghis J.V. & Mitford, T.B., 1964, "A royal inscription from Curium", BCH 88: 67-76. 

Karageorghis, V., 1963, "Une tombe de guerrier a Palaipaphos", BCH 87: 265-300. 

Karageorghis, V., 1967/78, Necropolis ofSalamis (Nicosia). 

Karageorghis, V., 1970, "Note on sigynnae and obeloi", BCH 94: 35^4. 

Karageorghis, V., 1976, Kition (London). 

Karageorghis, V., 1978, "Relations of tomb architecture of Anatolia and Cyprus in the archaic 
period", Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress on Classical Archaeology (Anka- 
ra): 361-8. 

Karageorghis, V., 1983, "New Phoenician discoveries in Cyprus", Atti del Primo Congresso 
Internationale degli Studi Fenici (Rome) 173-8. 

Karageorghis, V., 1985, Archaeology in Cyprus 1960-85 (Nicosia). 

Karageorghis, V., 1986, Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium: Cyprus between 
Orient and Occident (Nicosia) 

Karageorghis, V., 1990, "A propos de Kitiens portant la tiare", Semitica 39: 1-6. 

Karageorghis, V., 1991, "Amathus between Greeks and Phoenicians", Atti del Secondo Con- 
gresso Internationale degli Studi* Fenici (Rome): 959-68. 



Karageorghis, V. & Maier, F.G., 1984, Paphos (Nicosia). 

Karageorghis V. & Vermeule, C, 1964/66, Sculptures from Salamis I-H (Nicosia). 

Katzenstein, H.J., 1973, History of Tyre (Jerusalem). ' 

Katzenstein, H.J., 1979, "Tyre in the early Persian P^;^;^' R1 lft0 

Kawami, T.M., 1992, "Antike Persische Garten", in Carroll - Spillecke 1992. 81-100. 

Kelly T 1992, "The Assyrians, the Persians and the sea", Med.Hist.Rev. 7: 7-28. 

K estemont,G.,1983,"Tyr^^ 

Kestemont, G., 1984, "Les Pheniciens en Syrie de Nord", Studia Phoenicia n ^ 35-162. 

Kinnier Wilson, J.V., 1988, "Lines 40-50 of the Banquet Stele of Assurnasirpal II , Iraq 50. 79- 

Kirchner, J., 1901/03, Prosopographia Attica (Berlin). 
Kftchen, K., 1983, "Egypt, the Levant and Assyria in 701", in Festschrift Brunner (Wiesbaden). 

Kleiss W 1988, "Achamenidische Staudamme in Fars", AMI 2 21 : 63-8. 
Knudtzon, J.A., 1893, Assyrische Gebete an den Sonnengoti ^Leipzig). 
Koch H 1980, "Steuern in der achamenidischen Persis? , ZA 7U: iio-j/. 
Koch', H.'l990, Verwaltung und Wirtschaft im persischen Kernland (Wiesbaden). 
Koch', H. 1992, Es kundet Dareios der KOnig (Mainz). 
Kraay, CM., 1974, Archaic and Classical Greek Coinage (London). 
Kronasser, H., 1968, Etymologie der hettischen Sprache (Wiesbaden). 

Lackenbauer, S., 1990, Le Palais sans Rival (Paris). 

Landsberger, B., 1967, "Uber Farben im sumensch-akkadischen , JCS f 21. 139 £ 
Lane, E., 1969, "The Phoenician dialect of Lamax tit Lapethou JJJJ* 1 ^^ 45 ' 
Lanfranchi, G., 1988, "The letter of Sargon to Assur-sarru-usur , SAAB 2. 5*-(>4. 

Laveft.. 1984, "Herodotus on the Argives of Kourion", Hermes 102: 249-52. 
Layard, H., 1853, Discoveries in Nineveh and Babylon (London 
Leahy, A., 1986, "Egypt as a bronze-working centre . in Curtis ,1986. 2 7-310 
Leahy, A., 1988, "Earliest dated monument of Amasis and the end of the reign p 

Lebruni r"1 8 VV Anatolie et le monde phenicien du Xe au IV. ,«, Studia Phoenicia V: 22- 
Leclam, ,., 1968, "Relations entre Egypte et la Phenicie", in W.A.Ward, The Role of Phoenicia 

UccStS^i probleme de 1'ecriture ^^^^^VZ^T. Ac* 
Lecoq, P., 1984, "Un probleme de religion achemenide. Atiura maz 

Iranica 23: 301-26. ... „„„., /pnrUV 209-11. 

Lecoq, P., 1990, "Paradis en vieux-perse?", in ^^Z^ 

Lemaire, A., 1977, Inscriptions Hebraiques I: ^°™ ca ^ R J uge et ta M er Mediterranee", 
Lemaire, A., 1987, "Les pheniciens et le commerce entre la Mer Koug 

Studia Phoenicia V: 49-60. d< ,wj„ p a l'dooaue Perse", Trans. 3: 31-74. 

Lemaire, A., 1990, "Population et territoires de la Palestine ^a i p 4 et , e 

Lemaire, A., 1991a, "Recherches d'epigraphie , "■^—J*" M 

probleme d'acculturation", Achaemenid History VI m ^ _ yIIe s 

Lemaire, A., 1991b, "Recherches de topograph* h.stonque sur le pays 

avJ.C.)", in Courtils 1991:267-75. diffusion des ecritures alphabetiqu- 

Lemaire, A., 1992, "L'ecriture phenicienne en <^»«££rg£ l46 . 

es", in C. Baurain (ed.), Phoenicia Grammata (Louvain). 133 












Lemaire, A. & Lozmacheur, H., 1990, "La Cilicie a l'tSpoque Perse", Trans. 3: 143-156. 

Lerat, L., 1980, "Trois boucliers archaiques de Delphes", BCH 104: 93-1 14. 

Levy, E., 1987, "Lien personnel et titre royal: anax et basileus dans Tlliade", in E.Levy (ed.), Le 

systeme palatiale (Leiden): 291-314. 
Levy, I., 1940, "Platon et le faux Smerdis", REA 42: 234^1. 
Lewis, D.M., 1977, Sparta and Persia (Leiden). 

Lewis, D.M., 1989, "Persian gold in Greek international relations", REA 96: 227-235. 
Lewis, D.M., 1994, "The Persepolis tablets: speech, seal and script", in Bowman, A.K. & Woolf, 

G. (edd.), Literacy and Power in the Ancient World (Cambridge), 17-32. 
Lie, A.G., 1929, The Inscriptions ofSargon II (Paris) 
Linders, T., 1984, "The kandys in Greece and Persia", Op.Ath. 15: 107-144. 
Lipinski,E., 1972, "The Egypto-Babylonian War of Winter 601-600 B.C.", AIUON 32: 235^1. 
Lipinski, E„ 1978, "Lament on the fall of Sidon in Isaiah 23", El 14: 79-88. 
Lipinski, E., 1983, "Carthage de Chypre", Studia Phoenicia I/II (Louvain), 209-234. 
Lipinski, E., 1986a, "Zeus Hammon et Baal Hammon", Studia Phoenicia IV (Louvain): 307- 

Lipinski, E., 1986b, "Le Ba'ana d'Idalion", Syria 63: 379-382. 
Lipinski, E., 1987, "Reshep Amyklos", Studia Phoenicia V, 87-98. 
Lipinski, E., 1992, "The Cypriot vassals of Esarhaddon", Festschrift H.Tadmor: 58-64 
Lloyd, A.B., 1983, "The Late Period", in B.Trigger (ed.), Ancient Egypt: A Social History 

(Cambridge): 279-348. 
Lloyd, A.B., 1988, Herodotus II: Commentary ii (Leiden). 
Long, T,, Barbarians in Comedy (Toronto). 
Lorentz, F. von, 1937, "Barbaron Hyphasmatd\ RM 52: 165-222. 
Lorimer, H.L., 1903, "The country cart of the ancient Greeks", JHS 23: 132-151. 
Loucas-Durie, E„ 1989, "Kinyras et la fonction technique", Metis 4: 1 17-26. 
Loud, G., 1936, Khorsabad I (Chicago). 
Loulloupis, M., 1979, "Evidence of Egyptian Cult in Cyprus", in Acts of the First International 

Congress on Egyptology (Munich ): 431-9. 
Luckenbill, D.D., 1924, Annals of Sennacherib (Chicago). 
Luddeckens, E., 1960, Agyptische Ehevertrage (Wiesbaden). 

Magie, D., 1950, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton). 

Maier, F.G., 1985, "Factoids in ancient history: the case of fifth century Cyprus", JHS 105: 32- 

Maier, F.G., 1986, "Ausgrabungen in Alt Paphos 1983", AA: 145-193. 
Maier, F.G., 1989a, "Priest Kings in Cyprus", in Peltenburg 1989: 376-391. 
Maier, F.G., 1989b, "Palaces of Cypriot Kings", in Tatton-Brown 1989: 16-27. 
Malagardis, N., 1988, "Images du monde rurale attique", AE: 95-134. 
Manfredi, L., 1987, "Monete e valori ponderali fenici a Kition", RSO 61: 81-7. 
Markoe, G., 1987, "A bearded head from Lefkoniko", RDAC: 1 19-25. 
Markoe, G., 1988a, "Terracotta warrior from Kazaphani", RSF 16: 15-9. 
Markoe, G., 1988b, "An Egyptianizing votive statuette from Kourion", RDAC 1988: 17-18. 
Markoe, G., 1990, "Egyptianizing male votive statuary from Cyprus", Levant 22: 1 1 1-22. 
Masson, O., 1958, "Inscriptions grecs et chypriotes du petit temple d'A.*\ Rev.Phil.32: 92^. 
Masson, O., 1966, "Kypriaka II-III", BCH 90: 1-31. 
Masson, O., 1968, "Kypriaka IV-VIH", BCH 92: 375^09. 
Masson, O., 1971a, "Kypriaka IX", BCH 95: 305-34. 

Masson, O., 1971b, "Inscriptions chypriotes retrouv^es ou disparues", Syria 48: 427-52. 
Masson, O., 1981, "Les graffites chypriotes alphabetiques et syllabiques", in C.Traunecker, La 

Chapelle d'Achoris a Karnak (Paris), 253-94. 
Masson, O., 1982, "Pterins chypriotes en Phe*nicie", Semitica 32: 45-50. 

Masson, O., 1984, "Kypriaka XV-XVII", BCH 108: 71-89. 

Masson, O., 1988a, "L'inscription syllabique en Paphien Recent du village de Tala", RDAC: II 

Masson, O., 1988b, "Inscription eteochypriote„.d'Amathonte", Kadmos 27: 126-30. 

Masson, O., 1989, "Les inscriptions syllabiques chypriotes de Golgoi fouiltees 1969-72", 
Kadmos 28: 156-67. 

Masson, O., 1990a, "Euripide Bacchantes 402-8 et le fleuve de Paphos", REG 103: 355-69. 

Masson, O., 1990b, "Chypriotes et Phe*niciens a Golgoi", Semitica 39: 43^6. 

Masson, O., 1990c, "Variet<§s chypriotes syllabiques", Kadmos 29: 144-56. 

Masson, O., 1992/3, "Encore les royaumes Cypriotes dans la liste d' Esarhaddon", Centre 
d'Etudes Chypriotes: Cahiers 18:27-30, 

Masson O. & Sznycer, M., 1972, Recherches sur les Pheniciens de Chypre (Geneva). 

Matheson, S, 1972, Persia: an archaeological guide (London). 

Matthews, V., 1974, Panyassis of Halicarnassus (Leiden) 

Maxwell-Hyslop, K.R., 1974, "Assyrian sources of iron", Iraq 36: 139-154. 

Mayrhofer, M., 1973, Onomastica Persepolitana (Vienna). 

Meiggs, R., 1972, Athenian Empire (Oxford). 

Meissner, B, 1891, "Babylonische Pflanzennamen", ZA 6: 289-298. 

Mellink, M., 1971, "Archaeology in Asia Minor", AJA 85: 161-81. 

Mellink, M., 1974, "Notes on Anatolian wall-painting", in Melanges Mansel (Ankara), 537^7. 

Meuli, K., 1975, Gesammelte Schriften (Basel). 

Michaelidou-Nicolaou, L, 1978, "Oriental divinities in Cyprus", Festschrift Vermaseren (Lei- 
den): 790-800. 

Michaelidou-Nicolaou, I., 1987, "Repercussions of the Phoenician presence in Cyprus", Studia 
Phoenicia V (Louvain): 331-8. 

Michaelidou-Nicolaou, I., 1993, "Nouveaux documents sur le syllabaire chypnote", BCH 117: 

Milik, J.T., 1961, "St Thomas de Phordesa et GenA4.1T, Biblica 42: 77-84. 
Millard, A.R., 1973, "Cypriot copper in Babylonia c. 1745 BC", JCS 5: 21 1-4. 
Miller, M., 1985, Perserie (Harvard [Ph.D.]) t n 

Miller, M., 1992, "The parasol: an oriental status symbol in late archaic and classical Athens , 

JHS 112: 91-105. 
Minns, E.H., 1913, Scythians and Greeks in Southern Russia (Cambridge). 
Mitchell, T.C., 1982, "Israel and Judah", Cambridge Ancient History IIU: 442_51 ° 
Mitchell, T.C., 1991, "Part II, chapters 29-31", Cambridge Ancient History III.2: 322-460. 
Mitford, T.B., 1960, "Paphian inscriptions, Hoffmann 98 & 99", BICS 7: 1-10. 
Mitford, T.B., 1961a, "Further contributions to the epigraphy of Cyprus", AJA 65: 93-131. 
Mitford, T.B., 1961b, Studies in the signaries ofSW Cyprus (London). 
Mitford, T.B., 1961c, "The Hellenistic inscriptions of Old Paphos", ABSA 56: 1-41. 
Mitford, T.B.&Iliffe,J.H., "Excavations at Kouklia", Anf. J. 31:51-66 n -^ n » 

Mittmann, S., 1993, "'Gib den Kittaern 3 b(at) Wein'. Menge und Guter in den Arad-Bnefen , 

ZDPV 109* 398—48 
Moens, S.F., 1984, "The ancient Egyptian garden in the New Kingdom" OLP 15: 1 l-». 
Molyneux, J., 1985, "Cyprus and Cypriot myth in ancient Greek literature , in Papadopoulou 

Monbu^T 9 ,^?!; Les Figurines de Terracotte de Tradition Archaique [= Salamine XII] 

Monl ( o P u P ! S T., 1985, "Le cheval a Chypre", in Y. de Sike (ed.), Vie Quotidienne a Chypre (Paris) 

Moorey PR S 1977 "A note on pre-Achaemenid bronze standard caps", Iran 15: 141-6 
Moorey! pS', 1978, 4he iconography of an Achaemenid stamp seal acquired u. the Leba- 
non", Iran 16: 143-54. 










Moortgat, A M 1966, V order asiatische Rollsiegel (Berlin). 

Moretti, L., 1953, Iscrizioni Agonistiche Greche (Rome). 

Moretti, L., 1957 , Olimpionikai (Rome). 

Morris, S.P., 1992, Daidalos and the Origins of Greek Art (Princeton). 

Mosca, P.G.& Russell, J., 1987, "A Phoenician inscription from Cebel Ires Dagi", EA 9: 1-28. 

Moscati, S., 1973, The World of the Phoenicians (London). 

Motte, A., 1981, Prairies et Jardins (Paris). 

Mouterde, R., 1942/3, "Monuments et inscriptions de Syrie and du Liban", MUSJ 25: 23-79, 

Muhly, J.D., 1982, Early Metalurgy in Cyprus (Nicosia). 

Munro, J.A.R., 1891, "Excavations in Cyprus", JHS 12: 298-333. 

Munson, R.V., 1988, "Artemisia in Herodotus", CA 1 : 91-106 

Murray, O., 1966, "Ho arkhaios dasmos", Historia 15: 142-56. 

Myres, J.L., 1914, Handbook to the Cesnola Collection (New York). 

Myres, J.L., 1940/5, "Excavations in Cyprus 1913", ABSA 41: 53-96. 

Naber, S., 1888, "Selecta", Mnemosyne 2 16: 91-118. 

Nagy, G„ 1987, "The sign of Protesilaus", Metis 2: 207-13. 

Neumann, G., 1989, "Beitrage zum Kyprischen X", Kadmos 29: 89-95. 

Neumann, G., 1990, "Beitrage zum Kyprischen XII", Kadmos 30: 157-168. 

Neumann, G., 1994, "Beitrage zum Kyprischen XV", Kadmos 33: 1-9. 

Nicolaou, K., 1969/70, "Ghiande missili di Cipro", Annuario n.s.31/2: 359-63. 

Nicolaou, K„ 1976, Historical Topography ofKition (Goteborg). 

Nicolaou, K., 1980, "Une inscription en syllabaire chypriote au MusSe de Rhodes", BCH 104: 

Nicolaou, K., 1986, "Cypriots in the east and west. Foreigners in Cyprus", in Karageorghis 

1986: 423-38. 
Nolle, M., 1991, Denkmdler von Satrapensitz Daskyleion (Berlin). 

Oded, B., 1974, "The Phoenician cities in the Assyrian Empire in the time of Tiglath-Pileser III", 

ZDPV 90: 38-94. 
Oded, B., 1992, War, Peace and Empire: Justifications for War in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions 

Olmstead, A.T., 1930/1, "The text of Sargon's Annals", AJSL 47: 259-80. 
Oppenheim, A.L., 1949, "Garments of the Gods", JNES 248: 172-193. 
Oppenheim, A.L., 1965, "On royal gardens in Mesopotamia", JNES 24: 328-333. 
Oppenheim, A.L., 1973, "A note on Sa resi", JANES Columbia 5: 325-334. 
Osborne, R., 1987, Classical Landscapes with Figures (London). 
Osborne, R., 1992, "Greek Gardens", in J.D.Hunt (ed.), Garden History: Issues, Approaches, 

Methods (Washington): 373-91. 
Owens, EJ., 1991, The City in the Greek and Roman World (London), 

Palaima, T„ 1992,"The advent of the Greek alphabet on Cyprus" in C.Baurain (ed.), Phoenikeia 
Grammata (Louvain): 449-72. 

Papadopoulou, T„ 1985, Acts of the Second Cyprological Congress (Nicosia). 

Parayre, D., 1990, "Deux chapiteaux hathoriques a Amathonte'" BCH 1 14: 215-40. 

Parmentier, E„ 1987, "Phoenicians in the administration of Ptolemaic Cyprus", Studia Pho- 
enicia V (Louvain): 413-12. 

Parpola, S„ 1970, Letters from Assyrian Scholars (Neukirchen-Vluyn), 

Parpola. S., 1993, "The Assyrian tree of life: tracing the origins of Jewish monotheism and 
Greek philosophy", JNES 52: 161-208. 

Parpola, S. & Watanabe, K., 1989, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (Helsinki). 

Peltenburg, E.J., 1989, Early Society in Cyprus (Edinburgh). 



Perreault, J., 1986, "Ceramique et ^changes: les importations attiques au Proche-Orient du Vie 

au milieu du Ve siecle", BCH 110: 145-75. 
Perrot G & Chipiez, C, 1885, Histoire de VArt dans VAntiquite iii (Paris). 
Perrot*, J„ 1981, "L* architecture militaire et palatial des Achemenides", in 150 Jahre der DAI: 

79-9 >4. 
Petit, T„ 1988, "A propos des satrapies 'ioniennes' et 'cariennes', BCH 112: 307-22. 
Petit' T ' 1989 "Depot de fondation au Palais d'Amathonte", BCH 113: 135-48. 
Petit! T.', 1991a, "Presences et influences perses a Chypre", Achaemenid History VI (Leiden): 

Petit, T.,1991b,"Amathontede Chypre", Trans. 4: 9-20 
Petit, T„ 1992, "Syllabaire et alphabet au 'palais' d'Amathonte de Chypre vers 300 av.J,-C. , in 

C Baurain (ed.) Phoinikeia Grammata (Louvain): 481-98. 
Petit T 1993a, "Lesoriginesdescit^s-royaumeschypriotesaragedufer.LecasdAmathonte , 

Universite de St.Etienne: Etudes d'Histoire (St Etienne): 1-17. 
Petit, T., 1993b, "Synchronic et diachronie chez les historiens de r Empire achemenide , Topoi 

Pfeiffer,R., 1935, Assyrian State Letters (New Haven) ,,™ M «rt 

Piepkorn, A.C., 1933, Historical Prism Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal (Chicago). 
Pinches TG 1896, "Assyriological gleanings", PSBA 18: 250-7, D -«,i,* 

loX'lmZi ram's head in the Honolulu Academy of Arts", Festschrift Vanden Berghe 

(Ghent): 537-42. 
Porten, B., 1968, Archives from Elephantine (Berkeley). FtnDt ian Texts 

Porter, B. & Moss, R.L.B., 1927/81, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Texts, 

Reliefs and Paintings (Oxford). ccmacirnal U" JNES 52: 

Porter, B., 1993, "Sacred trees, date palms, and the royal persona of Assurnas.rpal II , JNl* 

129-40. /¥ . , 

Postgate, N., 1973, Governor's Palace Archive (London). 
Postgate, N., 1974a, Conscription and Taxation in the Assyrian Empire (RomeX 
Postgate, N., 1974b, "The BitAkitu in Assyrian Nabu temples .. Sumer a 51 74. 
Pottier.E., 1892, "Les sarcophages de Clazomenes et les hydnesde Caere ,BCH 
Pouilloux, J., 1975, "AthenesetSalaminede Chypre .^'^^ 
Pouilloux, J. 1976, "L'hellenisme a Salamine de J Chypre '^CH m.449-t ■ 
Pryzulski, J., 1931, "Une etoffe orientale: kaunak es . RAS£l* 31 i ■ &mirfcfl 

Puech, E., 1990, "Notes sur des inscriptions phemciens de Kition et oe 

Raeck,W. 1981.Z„^«^ 

Ray, J.D., 1990, "The names Psammetichus and Takheta , JEA 76. IW>-* 

Reade, J., 1991, Mesopotamia (London). idalion", ABSA 87: 243-57. 

Reyes, A.T., 1992, "Anthropomorphic bronze statues in archaic 

Reyes, AT., 1994, Archaic Cyprus (Oxford). fradizi oni classiche", in La Religione 

Ribichini, S., 1981, "Adonis. Connotaz.on. oriental! e tradiziom 

Fenicia (Rome): 91-108. 
Richter, G., 1970, Kouroi (London). ^Princeton). 

Ridgway, B., 1970, The Severe Style in Greek Sculpture g^^ 14 . 
Rigsby, K.,,1976, "Teiresias as magus in O^™^* in j. Ric h & G.Shipley (edd.). War 
Rihl.lL 1993, "War, slavery and settlement ,n early Greece .inJ 

and Society in the Greek ™"<£*$g£L and the garden of the Muses". Fesf 
Ritchie, C.E., "The Lyceum, the garden of Theopnr.. 

schrift Mylonas (Athens) IU: 250-60. 
Robert, L., 1980, A travers I'Asie Mineure (Paris). 







Robertson, M., 1975, History of Greek Art (Cambridge). 

Roebuck, C, 1959, Ionian Trade and Colonisation (New York). 

Rolley, C. & Masson, O., 1971, **Un bronze de Delphe a inscription chypriote syllabique", BCH 
95: 295-304. 

Root, M.C., 1979, King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art (Leiden). 

Roscher, W., 1884/6, Ausfiihrliches Lexikon der griechischen und rdmischen Mythologie (Leip- 

Roux, G., 1978, "Le chapiteau a protomes de taureaux", in Salamine de Chypre (Paris), 257-74. 

Rupp, D.W., 1988, "The royal tombs at Salamis: ideological messages of power and authority", 
JMAh 111-39. 

Rupp. D.W., 1989, "Puttin* on the Ritz: manifestations of high status in Iron Age Cyprus", in 
Peltenbeg 1989: 336-62. 

Sachs, A. & Hunger, H., 1988, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia (Vien- 
Saggs, H.W., 1955, "Nimrud Letters I", Iraq 17: 21-56. 
Saggs, H.W., 1984, The Might that was Assyria (London). 
Salles, J.F., 1985, "Un cratere a figures rouges a Kition-Bamboula", in Papadopoulous 1985: 

Salles, J.F., 1991, "Du bid, de l'huile...", Achaemenid History VI (Leiden): 207-36. 
Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H., 1991, *Nowruz in Persepolis', Achaemenid History VII 173-201. 
Sapin, J„ 1989, "Les transformations d'un domaine de la Couronne dans la Trouee de Horns de 

Tiglat Phalazar III a Auguste", Trans. 1: 21-54. 
Sapin, J., 1990, "Essai sur les structures geographiques de la toponymie aramdenne dans la 

Trouee de Horns et sur leur significtion historique", Trans2: 73-108. 
Sauneron, E. & Yoyotte, J., "Sur la politique palestinienne des rois saites", VT2: 131-6. 
Scandone, G., 1984, "Testimonianze egiziane in Fenicia dal XII al IV sec. a.C", RSF 12: 133- 

Schafer, J., "Ein Perserbau in Alt-Paphos?", Op.Ath.3: 155-75. 
Schauenburg, K., 1975, "Eurumedon eimi", AM 96: 97-121. 
Schmidt, E., 1940, Flights over Ancient Cities of Iran (Chicago). 
Schmidt, E., 1953, Persepolis I (Chicago). 
Schmidt, E., 1970, Persepolis III (Chicago). 

Schmidt, M., "Asia und Apate", Melanges P.E.Arias (Pisa), 505-20. 

Schmitt, R., 1984, "Persien und Persisches in Attischer Komodie", Acta Iranica 23: 459-474. 
Schweitzer, B., 1936, "Der Paris des Polygnots", Hermes 71: 288-94. 
Seibert, J., 1976, "Zur Bevolkerungsstruktur Zyperns", Anc.Soc. 7: 1-28. 
Senff, R., 1993, Das Apollonheiligtum von Idalion (Jonsered). 
Serwint, N., 1991, "The terracota sculpture from Marion", in Vandenabeele & Laffineur 1991: 

Seyrig, H., 1932, "Antiques syriennes", Syria 13: 189-95. 
Shahbazi, A.S., 1980, "An Achaemenid Symbol II: Farnah (God-given Fortune)", AMI 2 13: 

Shahbazi, A.S., 1983, "Darius' 'haft kisvar*", AMI 2 Ergbd.10: 239^5. 
Shefton, B., 1989, "The paradise flower, a court style Phoenician ornament", in Tatton-Brown 

Shiloh, Y., 1979, "City of David: Excavations in 1978", BA 42: 168-73. 
Shipley, G., 1993, "Introduction: the limits of war", in J.Rich & G.Shipley (edd.), War and 

Society in the Greek World (London): 1-24. 
Shrimpton, G.S., 1991, "Persian Strategy in Egypt and the date of the battle of Citium", Phoenix 

45: 1-20. 
Shrimpton, G.S., 1993, The Historian Theopompus (Montreal & Kingston) 

Sims-Williams, N., 1981, "The final paragraph of the tomb inscription of Darius I (DNb 50-60): 

the Old Persian version in the light of the Aramaic version", BSOAS 44: 1-7 
Skjaervo, P., 1994, "Achaemenid Vispasiyatis, Sassanian Wispad\ StudJran. 23: 79-80. 
Slater, W.J., 1991, Dining in a Classical Context (Ann Arbor). 
Snodgrass, A.M., 1988, Cyprus and Early Greek History (Nicosia). 
Sommerstein, A.H., 1977, "Notes on Aeschylus* Supplices", BICS 24: 67-82. 
Sommerstein, A.H., 1987, Aristophanes' Birds (Warminster). 
Sorensen, L. & Lund, J., 1989, "Cypriot find in Greece and Greek finds in Cyprus, 750-550 

BC", in Peltenburg 1989: 294-6. 
South, A.K., 1987, "Egyptian stone mortar with inscription of Amasis from Larnaka", RDAC: 

Spalinger, A., 1974, "Esarhaddon and Egypt", Orientalia 2 43: 295-326. 
Spalinger, A., 1977, "Egypt and Babylonia", SAK 5: 221^4. 
Spalinger, A., 1978, "Foreign policy of Egypt before the Assyrian conquest", Chromqued'Egypte 

52: 22^7. 
Starr, L, 1990, Queries to the Sungod (Helsinki). 

Stern, E., 1982, Material Culture of Palestine in the Persian Period (Warminster) 
Stern! E.i 1994, "The phoenician-cypriot votive scapula from Tel Dor", IEJ 44: 1-12. 
Stevenson, D.W.W., 1992, "A proposal for the irrigation of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon , 

Iraq 54: 35-55. # . 1QQ , 

Stieglitz, R., 1985, "Egypto-phoenician motifs on early Cypriot coins , in Papadopoulou 1985. 

Stolper, M.W., 1989, "The governor of Across-the-River in 486 BC", JNES 48: 283-305. 
Streck, M., 1916, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Konige (Leipzig) 
Stronach, D., 1989, "Royal Gardens at Pasargadae", in Festschrift Vanden Berghe (Ghent), 479- 

Stronach, D., 1990, "Gardens as political statement: some case studies from the Near East in the 

first millenium BC", Bull.Asia InstA: 171-80. 
Stylianou, P., 1985, History of Cyprus: Age of the Kingdoms (Nicosia). 
Summers, G.D., 1993, "Archaeological evidence for the Achaemenid period in eastern Turkey , 

Anat.Stud. 43: 85-108. . „ „ 

Sumner, W., 1986, "Achaemenid settlement in the Persepolis plain , AJA 90. i-ii. 
Symeonoglou, S., 1985, Topography of Thebes (Princeton). 
Sznycer, M., 1985, "Noms de metiers et de fonction", in, Colloque. Chypre, Vie 

Quotidienne (Paris), 79-86. (> , 

Sznycer, M., 1987, "Une inscription phenicienne d Amathonte , BCH "VI"* 
Sznycer, M., 1988, "Nouvelle lecture a la premiere ligne de nn^npuon phen.cenne de Larnax 

tis Lapethou conservee au Musee de Nicosie", RDAC: 59-62. 

Tadmor, H., 1958, "The campaigns of Sargon II", JCS 12: 22-40 ^77-100. 
Tadmor, H., 1966, "Philistia under Assyrian rule", BA 29: 8o-luz. 
Tatton-Brown, V., 1984, "Sculptors at Golgoi", RDAC: 169-173. 


Tatto 6 ntB 8 rown,V. & Crouwel,J.,1991,"Aterracottahorse and rider in B^s", In Festschrift 


gy of Cyprus (Ontario):121-8. 
Teixidor, J., 1988, "Larnax tis Lapethou". . Festschrift Marg 

Thesleff, H., 1981, "Man and locus amoenus in early GreeK poeiry 

(Munich), 31-45. 













Tilia, A.B., 1978, Studies and Restorations at Persepolis II (Rome). 

Tornkvist, S., 1972, "Arms, armour and dress of the terracotta sculpture from Ajia Irini", 

Medelvasmuseet Bulletin [Stockholm] 6: 7-55. 
Travlos, J., 1971, Pictorial Dictionary of Athens (London). 
Trumpelmann, L., 1988, Persepolis - ein Weltwunder der Antike (Mainz). 
Tuplin, C.J., 1985, "Imperial tyranny: some reflections on a classical Greek political metaphor", 

in Cartledge, P. & Harvey, D. (edd.), Crux: Essays presented to Ste Croix 

(Exeter), 348-75. 
Tuplin, C.J., 1987a, "Xenophon and the garrisons of the Achaemenid Empire", AMI 2 20: 167- 

Tuplin, C.J., 1987b, "Administration of the Persian Empire, in I.Carradice (ed.), Coinage and 

Administration in the Athenian and Persian Empires (Oxford), 109-66. 
Tuplin, C.J., 1990, "Persian decor in Cyropaedia", Achaemenid History V 17-29. 
Tuplin, C.J., 1992, "The 'Persian Bird*: an ornithonymic conundrum", AMI 2 25: 125-29. 
Tuplin, C.J., 1993, Failings of Empire (Wiesbaden). 
Tuplin, C.J., 1994a, 'Xenophon, Sparta and the Cyropaedia, in Powell, A. & Hodkinson, S. 

(edd.) The Shadow of Sparta (London and New York), 127-182. 
Tuplin, C.J., 1994b, "Persians as Medes", Achaemenid History VIII: 235-66. 
Tuplin, C.J. (forthcoming [a]), "The origins of Medism" 
Tuplin, C.J., (forthcoming [b]), "Education and Fiction in Xenophon's Cyropaedia", in A.H. 

Sommerstein (ed.), Education in Fiction (Bari). 
Tuplin, CJ. (forthcoming [c]), "The seasonal relocation of Achaemenid Kings: a report on old 

and new evidence", in Brosius, M. & Kuhrt, A. (edd.) Lewis Memorial Volume 
Tuplin, C.J. (forthcoming [d]), Xenophon: Anabasis (translation & notes) (Oxford) 

Uphill, E., 1967, "The nine bows", JEOL 19: 393^20. 

Vandenabeele, F., 1988, "Amathonte: le chantier sous la porte de Tacropole", BCH 112: 520-30. 

Vandenabeele, F. & Laffineur, R., Cypriote Terracottas (Brussels/Liege). 

Vanderpool E., 1953/4, "The museum and the garden of the Peripatetics", AE 126-8. 

Vandersleyen, C, 1971, Les Guerres d'Amosis (Brussells). 

Van der Spek, R.J., 1993, "The astronomical diaries as a source for Achaemenid and Hellenistic 

history", BL Or. 50:91-101. 
Van't Dack, E. & Hauben, H., "L'apport 6gyptien a Pannee navale lagide", in H.G.Maehler & 

V.M.Strocka, Das Ptolemaische Agypten (Mainz). 
Vatin, C, 1974, "Jardins et vergers grecs", Melanges Daux (Paris), 345-57. 
Vercoutter, J., 1949, "Les Habou Nebout", BIFAO 48: 107-209. 
Vermeule, C, 1974a, "Cypriote sculpture of the late archaic and early classical periods", AJA 

78: 287-90. 
Vermeule, C, 1974b, "Ram cults of Cyprus", RDAC: 151-6. 
Vermeule, C, 1976, Greek and Roman Cyprus (Boston). 
Vickers, M. 1984, "Demus* gold phiale", AJAH 9: 48-53 

Vickers, M., 1987, "Alcibiades on Stage: Philoctetes and Cyclops", Historia 36: 171-197 
Vickers, M. 1989a, "Persian gold in Parthenon inventories", REA 91: 249-57. 
Vickers, M. 1989b, "Panagyurishte, Dalboki, Lukovit and Rogozen: questions of metrology and 

status", in B.Cook (ed.), The Rogozen Treasure (London): 101-1 11. 
Vickers, M., 1989c, "Alcibiades on Stage: Thesmophorioazusae and Helen", Historia 38: 41- 

Vickers, M„ 1989d, "Alcibiades on Stage: Aristophanes* Birds", Historia 38: 267-99. 
Vickers, M., 1990a, "The impoverishment of the past: the case of classical Greece", Antiquity 

64: 455-63. 
Vickers, M., 1990b, "Golden Greece: relative values, minae and temple inventories", AJA 94: 







Vickers, M, 1991, "Persian, Thracian and Greek gold and silver: questions of metrology", 

Achaemenid History VI: 31-39. 
virW^ M 1992 "Metrology of gold and silver plate in classical Greece , Boreas 21 . 5i-u. 
vickers' M ' Em! "Alcibiades in C.oudedoverland", in Rose, R. & Farre.l, J. (edd.) Nomodeik- 

tes: Greek Studies in Honor of Martin Ostwald (Ann . Arbor), < 503-18 
Villanueva Puig, M., 1989, "Le vase des Perses: Naples 3253 , REA 91: 277-89. 
Vos, M., 1963, Scythian Archers in Archaic Attic Vase-Painting (Groningen). 

Wackernagel, F., 1921, "Zu der a.tpersischen S.e.le in ^^^T^m^ ^ 
Walker C B F, 1986, "Further notes on Assyrian bronzeworkmg , in Curtis 1986. 11 8. 
Walbank F W., 1988, "Macedonia and the Greek Leagues", Cambridge Anaent History VII . 

WalUng^HX. 1991, "Naval installations in Ci.icia Pedias", in J.Courti.s (ed.), De Anatolia 

Antiqua (Paris): 277-82. • .> rue ir>7- 1S4-63 

Watkin, H.J., 1987, "The Cypriot surrender to Persia , iWS 107. 154-63. 
Weidner, E.F., 1941/4,"Silkan(he)ni, Konig von M ™' A ?££7Zjx 
Weil, N., 1966, "Adoniazousai ou les femmes sur le oi t, BCH '90. M>4-y8. 
Welskopff 1989, The So-called Great Satraps' ^'' (W ,es °f £> 
West M L., 1968, "Two passages of Aristophanes , CR ns ' 8 - J '• 
West' M L 1970, Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient (Oxtora;. 
Wel^H-D , 1989, Indies in Thucydides ^^ist => <£-£ 
Will, E., 1952, "Nouveaux monuments sacres de la Syne romaine » . n 

Will, E., 1983, "Un monument hellenistique de Jordan e. le Qasrel *" « * 

A.Hadidi (ed.), Studies in the ^^ft^^^^^^nf^X. 

Will, E., 1988, "The succession to Alexander", Camb ^^!Za7tV. 77-103 

Wilson, V., 1975, "Iconography of Bes in Cyprus and « h ^ van ' ^ Mesopotamien und seine 

Winter, I., 1982, "Art as evidence for interaction , in J.Renger (ed.,, m 

Nachbarn I (Berlin): 355-82. commodities at home and 

Winter, I., 1986, "North Syria as a bronzeworkmg centre, luxury 
abroad", in Curtis 1986: 193-226. ^ A 

Wiseman,D., 1952, "Anew stele of Assurnas.rpal j^ 42 ^ 

Wiseman, D., 1966, "Some Egyptians in Babylonia Iraq 28^4-8 

Wiseman, D., 1983, "Mesopotamian Gardens ,AS «•» ' 

Wiseman, D., 1985, Nebuchadnezzar andja^n Lo^ ^^ ^.^ 269 _ 

Wright, G.R.H., 1991, "Cypriot rural sanctuaries , in r« 

*£ o.r.h.. urn.**, mm***.**- <*■ ' '»'"- 2: UM * 

Xella, P., 1991, Baal Hammon (Rome). 

v— . a.. .*, — -.- ssstr — ' fo " 

475 BCE on the Ahiqar scroll ^/^ U £ *> 
Yamauchi, E., 1990, Persia and the Bible ^P'J^J. Ktema 6: 4 9-57. . 

Yon, M.. 1989, "Sur l'administration de Kition a ep h 

375 - j • nc Hp Kition", Semitica 39: 177-86. 

Yon, M., 1991b, "The goddess of the salt-lake , 




m ; 

0' ! 

iti : 
6 : 

:r : 

El) ; 





Yon, M„ 1992, "Le royaume de Kition. Epoque classique", in Hackens 1992: 243-60. 
Yon, M. & Caubet, A., 1993, "Arouad et Amrit, VHIe-Ier s.av.J.-C", Trans 6: 47-68. 
Yon, M. & Sznycer, M., 1992, "Une inscription ph6nicienne royale de Kition", CRAI: 791-823. 
Young, J.H. & Young, S.H., 1955, Terracotta Figurines from Curium (Philadelphia). 
Yoyotte, J., 1951, "Sur le voyage asiatique de Psammetique II", VT 1: 140-4. 
Yoyotte, J., 1960, "Nechao", DictBibl Suppl.VII: 363-93. 

Zervoudaki, E., 1968, "Attische Polychrome Reliefkeramik des spaten 5 und des 4. Jhdts.", AM 

83: 1-88. 
Zick-Nissen, J., 1966, "Knupferteppich von Pazyrik und die Frage seiner Datierung", ArchAnz. 

Zimmermann, M., 1992, "Die lykische Haften und die Handelwege im ostlichen Mittelmeer", 

ZPE 92: 201-17. 
Zournatzi, A„ 1989, "A limestone figure wearing the kandys from Cyprus", RDAC: 127-34. 
Zournatzi, A., 1993, "Evagoras I and Athens in the Helen of Euripides?", Trans. 6: 103-1 18. 



acqueduct: 85 

*rs: 48 

akinakes: 55, 56, 162 

akitu: 86 

Alexander Mosaic: 90 

aloe: 123 

alsos: 90, 92, 114, 121, 122, 125, 126, 127: 

see also s.v. tombs 
altars: see s.v. sanctuaries 
Amazons: 47 
ambassu: 83, 84, 85, 87 
anassa, anax: 70 
angaros: 135, 148, 152, 164 
animals: 80, 81, 85, 97, 100, 107, 112, 114, 

124, 137, 149, 150 
ankh: 58, 77 
arakos: 98 

Athens: 132-177 passim 
and Persian Wars: 132 
assimilated to Persia: 140, 142, 143, 144, 
145, 172-176 
comedy: 141-152 
courts: 140, 146, 150 
empire: 132 
historians: 132 
orators: 153-163 
philosophers: 153-163 
tragedy: 133-136 
aule, aulion: 112, 116 
austerity: 139 

balsamom 97, 104-105, 114 
barbarian stereotypes: 133, 136, 141, 167 
barbaros: 133 

barbarian: 68, 70, 133, 136, 141, 148, 150, 
153, 155, 156, 160, 163, 166, 169, 171. 
See also s.v. Cyprus, barbarians in. 
basbas-fowl: 108 - 

beards: 58-60 
belted chiton: 54-56. See also s.v. Persia, dress 

beltemi: 18 , rtrt . ,, 

birds: 64, 80, 81, 90, 102, 103, 107, 108, 116, 

123, 125, 137, , 

143, 146, 151, 170. See also s.v. Persia, birds, 
botanical specialism: 114-115, 116, 118, 124- 

bribery: 152, 157, 163, 164 

bricks: 113, 119, 142 

bull: 58 

camels: 83, 109, 151, 164 

candys: 56, 174 

carpets: 51, 91, 175. See also s.v. decorated 

chariot: 63, 70, 84, 122, 144 
chronological issues: 9-16, 22, 23, 27f., 34, 

47, 53, 134 
"cist" tombs: 48 

civil war: 14, 35f, 40, 44, 64, 78, 159 
cocks: 142, 144, 147, 164. See also s.v. Persia, 

coiffure: 155, 166 
colonization: 19, 143 
columns: 53, 57 
commerce: see s.v. trade 
corn: see s.v. grain 
cowardice: 141, 160, 161, 164 
crowns: 54-60,91 
crucifixion: 164, 165 
cruelty: 165 

cuisine: 143, 161. See also s.v. food 
curtains: 101. See also s.v. decorated fabrics 
Cyprus 9-19 passim 

akinakes: 55, 56 

ankh: 11 

alien from Greek viewpoint: 68-74 

Assyrian acquisition of: 18-32, 59, 75 

Athens and: 12, 41, 69, 75, 76 

attitude to Persia: 4041, 43-47, 79 

barbarians in: 74, 77 

candys: 56 


coins: 38, 46, 52, 58, 61, 63, 68, 73, 76, 

colonization: 69, 74, 76 
compared with Euboea: 38 
conservatism: 70, 73 
copper: 20,41 
Cypriots in Persia: 42 
Cyrene and: 40-41, 52 
democracy: 61, 63 
Egypt and: cf. s.v. Egypt 
decorated fabrics: 51, 64 





fruit: 69 

gardens: 49-50 

Greek artistic influence: 72 

harmhamaxai: 51-52 

kings: 14, 40, 44, 46, 47, 57, 59, 60-65, 
70, 73, 74, 79 

kurbasia: 55 

military resources: 39, 43, 65 

Olympic Games and: 71 

Perseus in: 50 

Persian architecture: 53 

Persian coin-standard: 52 

Persian conquest of: 15-16 

Persian figures: 53-56 

Persian garrisons: 47 

Persian jewellery: 53 

Persian spies: 64 

Persian vessels: 53 

Persians in: 45, 48f, 75 

Phoenicia and: 19, 20, 23, 26, 35, 36, 40, 
43, 47, 49, 58, 75, 76-79 

rebellion in: 9-15, 40, 43^7, 75, 77 

saddle blankets: 50-51 

satraps, lack of: 40, 47 

sigloi: 52 

sleeved chiton: 55, 56 

Syrian Wars and: 17 

tiara: 53, 54, 55 

timber resources: cf. s.v. timber 

tombs: 48, 57, 58, 62, 63, 66, 70 

tribute: 39 

trousers: 55, 56 

tyranny: 61 

writing: 48, 61, 66, 72-74, 77 
darics: 175 
Darius Vase: 147 
dasmos: 162; see also s.v. tribute 
date-palm: 84, 90, 91, 92, 94, 98, 105, 113, 

decorated fabrics: 91, 135, 141, 144, 147, 149, 

150 151, 164, 172, 174, 175. See also 

s.vv. carpets, clothes, Cyprus, tapestries 
decorative trees: 81, 83, 84, 91, 98, 102, 104, 

118, 123, 127,128 
deification: 64,70, 134, 157-158 
defecation: 139, 150 
Delian League: 65 
Dionysia: 173 
drinking vessels: 53, 143, 150, 151, 152, 157, 

164, 169, 175 
drunkenness: 155, 162 
eagles: 52, 111, 144, 146, 152, 158. See also 

s.v. Persia, birds 

education: 128, 153, 162, 163, 164, 167 
effeminacy: 76, 133, 167 


dress: 58 

conflict with Babylon: 32ff., 37 

gardens in: 81, 116, 124 

and Cyprus: 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 26, 28, 29, 
30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 43, 50, 53, 55, 57- 

paradeisoi in: 97-109 passim, 118, 119, 
124, 125 

peacocks (?) in: 108 

rule of Cyprus: 16, 35, 36, 50, 59 
elaionophoinikoparadeisos: 93 
enclosures; 88-89,92,93, 100, 101, 117, 118 
epaulion, epaulis: 1 12 
ependytes: 174 
estate: 94, 95, 112, 156, 170 
Eteocypriots: 74-76 
ethnicity: 65-79. See also s.v. racism, 
eunuchs: 135, 147, 156, 163, 164, 166, 167, 

169, 170 
fans: 64, 135, 164,174 
fish: 80, 103, 145, 151 
flowers: 82, 84, 91, 102, 103, 104, 123, 125, 

126, 137 
fly-whisks: 144, 147, 152, 164 
food: 135, 149-150, 164, 175. See also s.v. 

fortress: 89, 94, 95, 111, 139 
fruit, fruit-trees: 69, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 91, 92, 

94, 102, 104, 113, 114, 123, 124, 127, 

128, 136, 152 
furniture: 141, 151,161, 164 
gam 92, 93 
gardens (kepos, kiru> kirimahu): 

contents: 81, 85, 90, 91, 126-128 

cost of: 130 

eating in: 115-116, 129 

education and: 127 

internal organisation: 126 

location: 50, 82-90, 92, 97, 98, 1 12, 128, 

pleasure of: 81, 82, 85, 86, 129, 130 

relation to paradeisoi: 87, 120, 126-131 

residence and: 128-129 

royal possession / symbol: 118, 122, 127, 

sex and: 81, 125, 127 

size: 126 

tombs and: 81, 89, 125, 127 

walking in: 81, 86, 87 
gardener: 83, 92, 96, 118 



gardening, Greek attitudes to: 119, 129 

garrisons: 47 

Gerginoi: 70 

gerrophoroi: 155 

gold: 133, 139, 146, 147, 150, 157, 161, 163, 

Gorgon: 50 

grain: 41, 82, 94, 95, 105, 124 
greco-persian art: 48-49, 51, 90, 101 
griffins: 150 
grass: 82, 105, 122 
grasshopper brooches: 145 
grove: see s.v. alsos 

gymnasium: 106, 109, 117, 122, 123, 128 
habrosyne: 76, 175, 176. See also s.v. luxury 
hair-style: 54, 59, 60, 155, 166 
hair: 129, 155 
harmamaxai: 51, 150 
hellenic culture: 15 
hellenism: 133, 153 
hellenization; 41, 54, 60, 61, 62, 65, 67, 72, 

75, 77, 78 
heroization: 44, 63, 64, 67, 70: see also s.v. 

hill: see s.v. mountain 
homosexuality: 159 

horsemen: 50, 51, 143, 155, 157, 166, 174 
hunting: 49, 80, 83, 84, 90, 92, 97, 100, 01, 
102, 109, 111,113,115,119, 121,123, 

hyphasmata: 135 

iconography, iconographic sources: 42, 48, 49, 

91 101, 106, 115, 119, 120, 129, 135, 
136, 147, 148, 150, 155, 158, 166 

impalement: 135, 164 

imperialism: 18, 65, 142 

incense, perfume: 18,71, 116, 150, 161 

incest: 165, 167 
"Ionians":23,24,27,42, 134 

Ionian Revolt: 75 

ippur: 108 

Iranian gardens: 89-90, 103 

jewellery: 53, 134, 144, 145, 162, 169, 173 

Jews: 67 
kalyptra: 157 
Kardakes: 147 

kaunakSs: 139 y 149, 152, 174 
kepos: 93. See s.v. gardens 
khvarnah: 158 
King's Dinner: 129 

king's divinity: 158. See also s.vv. deification, 

King's Eye: 144,156-157 

King's Friends: 156 

kingship: 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 70, 73, 74, 122, 

145, 147, 153, 160, 162, 168. See also 

s.v. royal self-presentation. 
King's Peace: 13, 136 
kirima: 94. See s.v. gardens 
kirimahu: 85-88. See s.v. gardens 
kurbasia: 54, 55, 147, 170 
kypassis: 135, 149 
lakes: 81, 84, 85, 102, 103, 120, 125 

landscaping: 88, 106, 113 
lapis lazuli: 82 
leimon: see s.v. meadow, 
lion: 52, 57, 58, 111, 135, 151 

lotus: 58 

luxury: 44, 64, 76, 105, 107, 112, 115, 120, 
122, 123, 129, 130, 131, 132, 135, 139, 
14l' 142, 143, 149, 150, 156, 161, 163, 
164! 166, 167, 169-170, 172, 175, 176. 
See also s.vv. truphe and habrosyne. 

magic: 62 

ma^.ma^a: 135, 158, 163, 164 

SET* 87, 100, 102, 104, 105 114, 

Median luxury: 139, 163 

medicine: 62 

Medos-Bird: 139, 147, 170 

Meidias Painter: 91 

mercenaries: 34, 36, 37, 72, 151, 154, 155, 


miscegenation: 159 

mitra: 174 

mlhyt: 63 

monarchy: see s.v. kingship 

• •_„. ai 81 84 85, 86, 8/, so, iuu, 
mountains: 81, si, »<>, °-> ° • 

105, 106, 113, 114, 116, 117, 118. 125, 
136, 137, 139, 150, 164 

,J^ 5 iw<U..32.33.H39.43 

Nowruz: 138 

nudity: 148, 158 

oasis: 126 

Odeion: 173 

okapi: 109 

oligarchy: 162 

olives: 98, 104, 105, 125, 145 

Olympic Games: 71 



oriental dress: 51, 55, 142, 148. See also s.v. 

Persia, dress 
orindes: 135 
orosangai: 135, 164 
palaces: 53, 57, 61, 83, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 

95, 108, 110, 113, 137, 157 
Panathenaea: 173, 174 
Panhellenic Games: 71 
panhellenism: 12, 142, 154, 161 
paradayadam: 93 
paradeisarion: 97 
paradeison: 97 
paradeisos 49, 80-131 passim, 137, 147, 164, 


as royal symbol: 118-119, 127 

as toponym: 99-100 

buildings and: 107-108,111 

clusters of: 111 

contents: 100-109 

eating and: 129 

etymology: 93, 129 

internal arangement: 105, 124, 126 

location: 109-110 

military use of: 99 

no lakes: 103 

non-uniformity of: 96, 97 

place of enjoyment: 115, 130 

prominence in landscape: 100, 110 

relation to kepoi and groves: 113-114, 

120-131 passim 

residence in: 107, 128 

Roman copies: 131 

sex and: 115, 125 

size: 97-100, 102 

walkways in: 106, 115, 122, 127 
parasang: 135, 164 
parasol: 49, 50, 106, 135, 173, 174 
pardesi&l, 114, 119 
pardesu: 113, 120 
partetas: 94-96, 178-182 
Parthenon: 173 
peacocks: 102, 108, 147, 150, 151, 157, 164. 

See also s.v. Persia, birds, 
pederasty: 148 
pellutra: 135 
perfume: 161, 170 

army: 134, 143, 147, 155 

assimilated to Athens: 172, 173, 176 

as symbolic opposite: 153 

law and: 156, 160, 162, 163, 164 

birds: 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 150-152, 
157, 158, 164, 170 

building programme: 160 

capitals: 138, 140, 157 

contrast with Greece: 153-154 

contrast with Sparta: 150 

effeminacy: 167-168, 174 

dance: 147-148 

deceit: 153, 160, 161 

described as Medes: 140 

dress: 49, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 91, 134, 135, 
136, 144, 143, 148, 149, 151, 152, 
157, 161, 162, 164, 169, 172, 173, 
174, 175. 

education: 158, 162, 163, 164, 167, 169 

empire as polis: 159, 162-163 

employment of Greeks: 137, 138, 158 

figures: 53, 56, 90 

historical events: 145-146, 154-155, 162 

landscape: 80-131 passim, 136-141, 147 

payment methods: 148 

pride: 134, 160, 164 

religion: 48, 147, 152, 158 

road-system: 106, 135, 147, 164, See s.v. 
travel authorization 

royal gifts: 152, 157 

shoes: 134, 149, 157. See also s.v. Persia, 

specialist Greek writers on: 132, 171 

subjects as slaves: 142-144, 157, 159, 
160, 164 

taxation: 148 

tent: 161, 170, 173 

traditional enemy: 146, 153, 154 

valuation of beauty: 156 

walking stick: 149 

wealth: 161, 162, 163, 164 

women: 162-168 

words: 164 
Persian Wars: 132, 133, 145-146, 150, 151, 

155, 155, 173 
phalara: 134 
phialai: 53 
physical beauty: 156 
pleasure: see s.v. utility 
ponds: see s.v. lakes 
population transfer: 159 
pride: 145, 147, 150, 159, 160 
prophecy: 140, 144. See also s.v. oracles 
proskynesis: 134, 135, 157, 158 
prostitutes: 69, 127 
provinces: 25, 40 
purple: 144 
qepu: 18 





qirsu: 87 

racism: 65, 66, 76, 78, 79, 133, 168. See s.v. 

rb hz'nm: 63 
rb sprm: 63 
rb srsrm: 48, 63 
rebellion: 12, 19, 78, 101, 116, 155, 159, 166. 

See also s.v. Cyprus, 
religion: 48, 57, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 86, 87, 
92, 95, 116-118, 122, 125, 127, 135, 
138, 142, 143, 147, 148, 157, 158: see 
also s.v. sanctuaries 
rhyta: 53 

religious ritual: see s.v. religion 
rosettes: 54, 60,91 
royal gifts: 39, 157, 164 
royal self-presentation: 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 50, 
52, 57, 59, 60-65, 77, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 
91,92, 118, 121, 122, 127, 138, 143-144, 
sacred tree: 117 
saddle blankets: 50 
Saite dynasty: 57, 59 

sanctuaries: 35, 50, 51, 55, 56, 63, 66, 67, 68, 
71, 72, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 92, 99, 
102, 108, 114, 113, 116, 117, 120, 121, 
129, 158 
sarcophagi: 48, 49, 50, 58 
sarapis: 135 
sa res\ 156 
sareton: 135 

Sasanid dynasty: 90, 97, 101 
satraps: 40, 42, 43, 52, 57, 77, 80, 92, 100, 
108, 110, 118, 131, 142, 151, 152, 156, 
Satraps* Revolt: 165 
sealstones: 48 
sex: 64, 74, 76, 81, 115, 127, 133, 148, 152, 

164, 165, 166, 175 
shepherds: 138, 139, 162 
silver: 161, 163 
skn: 63, 65, 68 
sphinx: 58 
spt: 63 

stasis: see s.v. civil war 
statues: 55, 56, 57, 59 
storage: 94, 95, 96 
strategy: 11, 14-15, 16-17,22,26,28,29,30- 

32, 36, 37 
sub-achaemenid: see s.v. greco-persian 

sudaba: 108 

tapestries: 150, 151, 175 

tax / taxes: see s.vv. dasmos; tribute 

temples: see s.v. sanctuaries 

thrinkos: 93 

throne: 54, 91, 162 

thulakoi: 134 

tiarai:54,55, 134, 158, 166 

tiger: 109 

timber: 18, 24, 33, 34, 36, 39, 41, 66, 68, 74. 

See also s.v. wood as commodity 
tombs: 48, 62, 70, 89, 90, 93, 102, 105, 107, 
115, 125, 127, 143, 146. See also s.v. 
tophet: 67 
torture: 101, 164-166. See also s.v. 

trade: 18-19, 29, 26, 36, 41, 66, 68, 74, 75, 76, 

travel authorization: 43, 138, 157 
treasury: 94, 95, 163 

trees: 80, 81, 82, 85, 86, 90, 91, 94, 103, 104, 
111, 117, 121, 122, 123, 128, 137. See 
also s.vv. decorative trees, fruit-trees, 
sacred trees 
tribute: 15, 16, 18, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 35, 37, 
39, 43, 78, 83, 91, 94, 97, 109, 115, 118, 
123, 134, 148, 156, 157, 160, 162, 164, 
169, 173 
Trojan War: 70, 74, 76, 90, 135, 136, 154 
tropaion: 79, 146 

trousers: 51, 55, 136, 149, 161, 166, 174 
truphe:99, 161, 162, 167, 175, 176 
tyranny: 61, 135, 141, 145, 148, 154, 157, 158, 

159, 160, 162, 164, 167, 169 
utility: 82, 86, 87, 96, 107, 109, 1 10, 1 1 1, 1 12, 
113,114, 115,117,118, 119,120,126, 
129, 130, 131 
vegetables: 81,98, 105, 127, 130, 148 
vengeance: 25, 26, 168 
villages: 80, 112 
vines: 81, 82, 84, 86, 98, 104, 113, 115,118, 

123, 128, 143 
water supply: 81, 84, 86, 88, 92, 93, 97, 102, 

106, 112, 117, 120, 122, 123, 128, 129, 

Weinlaube: 84, 85 
winged disk / figure: 54, 58, 158 
wood as commodity: 94, 96, 1 14. See also s.v. 

workers: 42, 43, 94, 143, 148 

writing systems: 72. See s.v. Cyprus. 
xustis: 174 
zone: 157, 161 
zoo: 85 







5 1 





: Or 


Abdalonymus: 92, 118 

Abdemon: 47, 65, 76, 78 

Abdi-Milkuti: 29 

Adad-Suma-usur: 83 

Abdobalus: 66 

Achoris: 10, 11 

Adad-Nirari III: 22 

Adonis: 75, 76, 117,129 

Agamemnon: 74, 76 

Agatharcus: 158 

Agathocles (s. of Macron): 47 

Agathon: 76 

Agesilaus: 13, 80 

Agyris: 14 

Ahriman: 158 

Ahuramazda: 158 

Alcibiades: 147, 159, 166, 167, 169, 170, 172, 

Alcinous: 126 

Alexander (the Great): 78, 99, 155 
Amasis: 35, 36, 37, 40 
Amestris: 154, 165, 168 
AmmaSis: 95, 96 
Ammon: 121, 125 
Amytis; 166 
Andocides: 41 
Androcles: 71,73,74 
Antalcidas: 13, 14 
Antigonus: 16, 17, 47 
Antileon: 145 
Aphrodite: 57, 62, 68, 69, 71, 74, 117, 127, 

Apollo: 54, 55, 56, 66, 74, 93, 1 17 
Apollo Hylates: 48, 56 
ApoIIodorus: 128 
Apollonides: 138 
Apries: 34, 35, 36, 37 
Aristagoras: 38 
Aristides: 145 
Arsaces: 160 
Artabates: 48 
Artapanes: 154 

Artaphernes: 38 

Artaxerxes I: 79, 108, 154, 165 

Artaxerxes II: 9, 14, 15, 40, 80, 127, 154, 155 

Artaxerxes III: 13, 17, 163 

Artayctes: 120, 121 

Artembares: 137 

Artemis: 117, 158 

Artemisia: (1) 165; (2) 165 

Artoxares: 144 

Arty stone: 108 

Asclepius: 117 

Assurbanipal: 25, 27, 29, 31, 83, 84, 85, 86, 

101, 115, 116 
Assurnasirpal II: 20, 22, 84, 85, 86, 87 
Astarte: 55, 57, 62, 63, 66, 71 
Astyanax: 129 
Atossa: 165, 166 
Attalus Philometor: 127 
Augustus: 122, 127 
Autophradates: 154 
Ba'al(Tyre): 18,20,28 
Ba'alHammon: 67, 71 
Baalman: 73 
Baalrom: 63 
Bagoas: 92 
Bakaparna: 178 
Balsamon: 66 
Bdelycleon: 140 
Belesys: 111, 118 
Beletaras: 118 
Bes: 48 
Cadmus: 153 
Callias: 167, 172 
Callicratidas: 152 
Callistratus: 143 

Cambyses: 16, 36, 139, 162, 165 
Candace: 104 
Chabrias: 13, 14 
Cimon: 47 

Cinyras: 22, 62, 68, 71, 74, 75, 76 
Clearchus: 160 
Cleon: 144 
Conon:77, 160 
Cotys: 122, 126 
Croesus: 175 
Cyprothemis: 70 



Cyrus (Elder): 16, 93, 107, 1 16, 1 19, 120, 127, 

137, 139, 155, 158, 162, 163, 167, 175 
Cyrus (Younger): 111, 126, 152. 154, 157, 

Darius I: 54, 89, 90, 117, 118, 139, 143, 156, 

162, 163, 165 
Darius II: 42, 79, 162 
Darius III: 90, 116 
Datapparna: 180 
Datis: 146, 154 
Dattana: 43 
Dausakma: 181 
Deinomache: 168 
Demetrius (Poliorcetes): 17 
Democedes: 138, 140 
Democritus: 127, 128 
Demonicus: 46 
Demus: 157, 175 
Didyme: 66 
DionysiusI: 109 
Dionysus: 117 
Dmetor: 68 
Doxandros: 46 
Echetimus: 62 
Eiromos: 46 
Elulaeus: see s.v. Lulli 
Enlilbani: 118 
Epicrates: 143, 157, 161 
Epicurus: 127, 128, 130 
Esarhaddon: 18, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 85, 86, 
Euelthon: 40, 41, 46, 63, 65, 71 
Eurysaces: 69 

Evagoras: 9-15 pass., 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 

77,78,79, 159 
Evagoras II: 44, 47, 52 
Gadatas: 92 
Gelon: 122 
GeraStart: 47 
Geryon: 50 
Glos: 9, 14 
Gordius: 118 
Gorgos: 44 
Graces: 117 
Gyges: 30, 34 

Hammurabi: 82, 116 

Hanno: 22 

Harpalus: 114 

HaSSidada: 178 

Hathor: 57, 58, 59, 62 

Hecatomnus: 11, 14 

Hecuba: 129 

Helen: 12 

Hephaestion: 117 
Heracles: 66, 67, 71, 117 
Hieron: 122 
Hippias: 145, 161 
Hiram II: 20 
Hosea: 22 
Hyperbolus: 144 
Hyrcanus: 113 
Iakinlu: 19 
Idrieus: 44, 153 
Intaphernes: 165 
Iphicrates: 171 
Ion: 175 
Irdamana: 178 
Ischomachus: 175 
Jehoiakin: 33 
Julian: 117 
Kore: 48 
Lacydes: 128 
Lais: 152 
Leonnatus: 101 
Leto: 64 

Lulli: 19, 20, 26, 27 
Ly sander: 111 
Mania: 165 
Mardonius: 121, 154 

Marduk-apla-Iddina: 118 

Marikas: 140 

MasdayaSna: 181 

Masistes: 165 

Mausolus: 40, 142 

Megabyzus: 148 

Meidias: 169 

Melanthius: 128 

Memnon: 135 

Menahem: 66 

Menecrates: 151 

Menelaus: 101 

Meno: 161 

Merire: 81 

Meten: 81 

Midas: 121 

Milkyaton:61,63, 79 

Miltiades: 145 
Misthos: 72 
Mita: 24, 25 
Mithradates: 154 
Mithris: 48 
Mnaseas: 66 
Mnesimachus: 114 
Moles: 66 
Mycerinus: 122 











Nabapirruna: 181 

Nabonidus: 38, 118 

Naplu-apla-iddina: 83 

Nebuchadnezzar: 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 106 

Necho: 33 

Neriglissar: 38 

Nicias: 173 

Nicocles (Salamis): 43, 44, 48, 52, 60, 61, 62, 

Nicocles (Paphos): 73 

Nicocreon: 62,71 

Nicostratus: 151 

Oceanus: 117 

Onesandros (s. of Artabates): 48 

Onesilus: 44 

Orontas (s. of Orontas): 48 

Orontes: 9, 1 1 

Pammenes: 98 

Paphlagon: 144 

Param: 47 

Parnaka: 181 

Parysatis: 166 

Pausanias: 45 

Pelops: 153 

Penthylus: 43 

Perdiccas: 16 

Pericles (Athens): 130, 172 

Pericles (Limyra): 13 

Persaeus: 48 

Phaedyme: 165 

Pharnabazus: 9, 15, 80, 115, 152 

Pharnace: 75 

Pharnaces: 142 

Pheretime: 40 

Philaon: 43 

Philocles: 16, 17 

Philodemus: 66 

Phocion: 44 

Piankhy: 22 

Pisistratus: 145 

Pixodaros: 142 

Plato: 128, 130 ^ 

Pnytagoras: 44, 47, 71 

Polycrates: 40 

Polyidus: 136 

Poseidon: 117 

Protesilaus: 120 

PRSY: 48 

Psammetichus I: 30, 31, 34 

Psammetichus II: 33 

Pseudartaba: 169 

Ptolemy I: 16,17,47 

Ptolemy II: 16,112, 116 

Ptolemy III: 16, 109 

Pumiathon: 68, 78, 

Pyrilampes: 109, 147 

Pythius: 118 

Qurdi-aSSur-lamur: 23 

Ramses: 116 

Resef: 54, 66 

Rhesus: 134 

Rhodogyne: 155, 166, 167, 168 

Rhoikos: 52 

Rhoxane: 166 

Rusa: 82, 87 

Sabazius: 148 

Sabinus: 129 

Sandasharme: 21 


Sardanapalus: 76, 142 

Sargon: 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 82, 84, 

85,86, 116 
Sargon of Akkad: 118 
Sasmas: 46 
Satrapas: 48 
Seleucus: 16 

Semiramis: 97, 99, 107, 166 
Sennacherib: 26, 27, 28, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 90, 

105, 106 
Sesostris: 118 
Shalmaneser HI: 20, 22, 29 
Shamashshumukin: 27 
Sidqmelek: 46 
Siromos: 65 
Smerdis: 165: 165 
So: 22 

Socrates: 170 
Solomon: 116 
Stasicrates: 73 
Stasicyprus: 45, 70 
Stasioecus: 73 
Strato: 43, 44, 64, 68 
Susannah: 103 
Syennesis (Cyprus): 22 
Sarnuya: 181 
Sippuka: 178 
Suttezza: 178 
Taharqa: 27, 28, 30, 31 
Tanit: 67 
Tantalus: 129 
Tarkuaris: 63 
Tecmessa: 69 
Teucer: 63, 69, 70, 75, 76 
Teucridae: 47 

Themistocles: 157, 160, 170, 176 
Theophrastus: 128 



Tiglath-Pileser I: 86 

Tiglath-Pilcser III: 18,20,21,22 

Timagoras: 157, 161 

Timarchus: 62, 73 

Timocharis: 62, 77 

Timocleia: 130 

Timon: 128 

Timotheus: 171 

Tiribazus: 9, 14 

Tissaphernes: 105, 115, 125, 132, 155, 157, 

Tobias: 112 
Triptolemus: 135 

Tuthmosis III: 116 

Urik: 21 

USaya: 181 

Xerxes: 89, 118, 132, 134, 139, 153, 154, 155, 
157, 161, 162, 163, 168 

Yamani: 23, 24 

Yasnukka: 180 

Yehaumilk: 57 

Zarnuya: 181 

Zeno:98, 119, 124 

Zeus: 117 

ZiSSawiS: 180 

Zopyrus: 143, 145, 165 

TZo-pu-ro-se: 48 

Zoroaster: 158, 163 


AbbadaraS: 94, 180, 182 
Academy: 106, 107, 122, 130 
Achna: 60 
Akkuban:94, 180 
Alashiya: 20 
Aloa: 60 

Amanus: 85, 86, 87, 116 
Amathus: 14, 39, 44, 48, 50, 52, 53, 54, 57, 58, 

Amurru: 23 
Anatolia: 21, 24, 25 

Andaranti: 181 
AnindaziS: 180 
Ankarakkan: 181 

Anzitene: 99 
Appistapdan: 94, 180-182 

AptudaraS: 94, 180, 182 

Arabia: 139 

Arad* 19 42 

AraqdEmir: 99,103,110,111,112,113 

Argos:71, 121 

Armenia: 155 

Arsenjan: 179 

Artemisium: 146 

Arza: 27, 28 

Ashdod: 23, 32 

Asia: 14, 15, 152 

Aspendus: 13 

Assur: 116 

Assyria(ns): \%-32 passim, 59, 80-88 passim, 

Athens: 128, 130 
Atlantic Island: 109,110 
Athura: 42 

Aurasion: 102, 104, 109, 110, 111 
Aziris: 121 
Babylon(ians): 16, 20, 25, 28, 33, 34, 35, 36, 

37, 92, 99, 103, 104, 107, 109, 110, 111, 

113, 114, 116, 120, 124, 125, 142, 145, 

159, 160 
Hanging gardens: 97, 104, 106, 107, 125, 137 
Bactra: 140 
Bactria: 139 
Baktis: 178 
Bamboula: 63 
Barasba: 94, 179 
Barca: 13 
Batnae: 123 
Bavian: 82 
Bazaira: 101 


Bertiz: 100 
Bit Burutas: 25 
Borazjan: 89 
Brauron: 174 
Brook of Egypt: 22, 33 

Bubastis: 121 
Byblos: 21 
Byzantium: 43 
Cadusians: 9 
Callatebus: 117 
Carmania: 124 
Carthage: 153, 155 

Celenderis: 22 
Cellarka: 62 
Celts: 155 
Cerceosiris: 98, 1 1 1 
Chalcis: 39 





Chaldaea: 85 

Chauon:99, 110 

Chemmis: 121 

ChogaZanbil: 116 

Chytroi: 61 

Cilicia: 10, 11, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 38, 42, 

44, 63, 68, 99 
Cissia: 135 
Citium: 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 24, 25, 29, 

39, 40, 45, 47, 48, 50, 52, 55, 57, 58, 63, 

Cnidus: 40, 129 
Constantinople: 102, 107, 110 
Corinth: 10, 126 
Crathis: 143 
Crete: 151 
Curium: 44, 48, 49, 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 72, 

74, 126 
Cyinda:26, 152 
Cyme: 10 
Cyprus: 9-79 passim, 93, 95, 124, 127, 129, 

151, 181 
Cyrene: 37, 40, 52 
Cythnians: 68 
Dahutrasa: 94 
Damascus: 17, 21 
Danuna: 21 
Daphne: 92, 125 
Dardatas (R.): 102, 110 
Dascyleium: 55, 90, 93, 100, 102, 103, 104, 

DeielBahari: 116 
Delos: 117 
Didyma: 99 
Dilmun: 25, 30 
Dor: 72 

Dur Sharrukin: 20, 83, 86 
Ebir Nari: 32, 42 
Ecbatana: 91, 115, 140, 144, 149 
Eden: 81, 102 
Edom: 18 
Egypt / Egyptian(s): 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 18, 22 - 

39 passim, 57, 58, 60, 68, 69, 72, 75, 81, 

97, 104, 108, 110, 118, 119, 121, 124, 

125, 142, 148, 159, 160 
Elam:21,30, 84, 87, 128 
Elephantine: 33, 36, 37, 144 
Eleutheros (R.): 16,49 
Eltekeh: 28 
Ephesus: 170 
Eretria: 39 
Etan: 102, 110,111 
Ethiopia: 68, 69, 121, 122 

Euboea: 24, 38 

Euphrates: 33, 42 

Eurymedon: 45, 149 

Fayum: 103 

Feredeisi: 100 

Fraidisi: 100 

Ganos: 92 

Gaza: 18,22,25,33 

Geloni: 121, 129 

Gennesaret: 109 

Geraestus: 39 

Golgoi: 48, 49, 54, 56, 57, 60, 77 

Gryneium: 125 

Hadaran: 181 

Halibbas: 181 

Hapruma: 94, 95, 178 

Harbaziya: 180 

Harbezza: 180, 181 

Hardarizza: 94, 181 

Harrakran: 180 

Haiti: 22, 23 

Hephaestium: 126 

Heraea: 122 

Hestiaea: 39 

Hierokepis: 92, 128 

Hiran: 181 

Hume: 38 

Hunar: 180 

la': 21, 24 


Iamuniammu: 42 

Iasubu: 20 

Ibat: 181 

Iberians: 155 

Idalion: 45, 50, 55, 57, 58, 61, 66, 71, 72, 77, 

Ionia(ns): 20, 23, 27, 42, 46 
India: 103, 104, 109, 110, 139, 150 
Ipsus: 17 
Issus: 26 
Itanus: 109,115 
Jericho: 105,110,111,123 
Jerusalem: 34, 102, 104, 109, 111 
Judah: 34 

Kaba£:94,95, 179, 182 
Kalavassos: 57 
KamenuS: 180, 181 
Kandukka: 94, 95, 179 
Kaphizin: 72 
Karakka: 178 
Karanis: 98 
Karatepe: 21 
Kar Esarhaddon: 22, 29 





Karnak: 116 

Kashpuna: 18 

KaupirriS: 43, 180 

Kazaphani: 60 

Khorsabad: 20, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 

Khosr Canal: 86 


Kittim: 20, 22, 23, 34, 78 

Kommisariato: 67 

Kukannakan: 94, 180 

Kundu: 26 

Kuntarturriza: 95 

Kurra: 180 

Kursamus: 180 

KurtimiS: 180 

Kurtipis: 180 

Kutku£:94,95, 178, 

Kythrea: 59 

Labraunda: 92, 107, 110, 121 

Lachish: 128 

Laodiceia ad Mare: 130 

Lapethos: 46, 47, 52, 66, 72, 74 

Larissa: 126 

Larnaka: 25, 26, 62 

Lebanon: 18,33,86 

Ledra: 66 

Lefkoniko: 55, 60, 72 

Lesbos: 101, 105, 110 

Levant: 44, 58 

Limassol: 67 

Limyra: 13, 50 

Lyceum: 129 

Lycia:40,50, 153 

Lydia(ns): 16, 38, 100, 104, 107, 111, 120, 

133, 139 
Macedonia: 163 
Madana: 94, 95, 179, 180 
Magdola: 98 
Magdolus: 33 
Magnesia: 117 
MamakaS: 94, 178 
MandumatiS: 181 
Marathon: 145, 163, 154, 168 
Marium: 39, 44, 46, 72, 76 
Mar(r)a: 180 
MarsaSkaS: 181 
Matannan:95, 179, 181 

MatezziS: 89, 179, 181 

Media, Medes: 16,38,45, 100, 110, 136, 159 

Megiddo: 116 

Memphis: 21, 30, 31, 32, 36 

Meniko: 67 
Mersin: 26 

Mieza: 128 
Misdukba: 94, 96, 181 
Murdarizza: 181 
Murkaziya: 94, 179, 180 
Musasir: 21 
Musri (Mt.): 86 
MutrizaS: 94, 95, 178 
Mycale: 43, 44 
Nahr el Kalb: 28 
Naq5-i Rustam: 89, 96 

NarezzaS: 181 

Nile: 33 

Nimrud: 87 

Nineveh: 22, 26, 28, 31, 42, 83, 84, 86, 87 

Nupistas:94,95,96, 179 

Nysa: 125 

Olbe: 63 

Olympia: 170 

Olynthus: 130 

Onchestus: 122 

Onocharsis: 126 

Orontes (R.): 20 

Oxyrhyncus: 98, 109 

Palaipapho: 53 

Palestine: 15, 16,28,33,57 

Pamphylia: 13,68 
Panara: 125, 129 
Pangaeum: 126 
Panormus: 128 
Paphlagonia: 148 

Paphos, Paphians: 24, 39, 43, 46, 47 52, 57, 


Pap(p)a: 24 

Papu: 24 

Paradisotissa: 71 

Pege: 102,110 

Pelusium:28 92 , 94, 95, 96, 97, 

Persepolis:38,43, 33,*i>^>* ' 


173, 179-182 
Persia /Persis: 101, 124 

Petra: 124 

Phaeacia(ns): 123 

Phocaea: 10 g 42 

67', 68, 72, 75, 76, 77, 78 







Phordesia: 100 

Phrygia: 133 

Pirdubatti: 94, 95, 181 

Piriddu: 38 

Pitusu: 38 

Pityussa: 38 

Plataea:44, 149, 155, 173 

Polytimetus (R.): 102, 110 

Posidium: 125 

Protesilaum: 121 

Psen: 98 

Putuiaman: 37 

Pyla: 56, 60 

Qartidahast: 19,20 

Qarqar: 22 

Que: 21, 23, 25,27 

Raduma: 181 

Rakakas: 95 

Rakkan: 180,181 

Ramath Mizpeh: 1 1 1 

Red Sea: 33, 144 

Rhamnus: 117 

Rhegium: 50, 104, 106, 109, 114 

Rhodes: 35, 52 

Salamis (Athens): 43, 149 

Salamis (Cyprus): 10, 37, 39, 40, 43, 44, 46, 

47, 50, 52, 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 72, 76, 77, 

Salines: 55, 77. (See also s.v. Citium.) 
Samine: 42 
Samsimuruna: 23 
Sang-i Siah: 89 
Sardis: 102, 104, 105, 107, 110, 111, 114, 115, 

118, 121, 124, 125, 129, 130, 140, 141, 

142, 155, 174 
Saurakkas: 94, 95, 178 
Sala: 95 

Scillus: 113, 124 
Scythia:55, 155, 174, 
Shiraz:94, 180, 181 
Shupria: 27 
Sicyon: 104, 129, 130 
Sidon: 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 

Simira: 21 
Sipylus: 125 
Sissu: 26 

Sittace: 99, 104, 109 
Sogdiana: 104, 116 
Soloi; 27, 39, 43, 44, 71, 73, 75, 77 
Sparta: 14,77,132, 150 
Susa: 90, 91, 92, 97, 100, 102, 107, 109, 110, 

111, 138, 139, 140 
Sybaris: 143 
Syracuse: 128 
Syria: 10,12, 15, 16, 22, 33, 55, 57, 100, 105, 

111, 114, 115 
Tamassos: 44 
Tabal:21,23, 27 
Tala: 48 

Tamassos: 57, 66, 69, 72, 78 
Tamukkan: 94, 95, 178, 179, 182 
Taq-i Bostan: 90, 97, 99, 101 
Tarsis: 22, 27 
Tayma: 58 
Tell er Ruqeish: 18 
Telmessus: 13 
Tel Sukas: 36 
Tennuku: 180 
Tenos: 130 

Thebes (Egypt): 32, 36 
Thebes (Greece): 130 
Thermopylae: 149 
Thrace: 133, 152, 155, 174 
Thurii: 143 

Tigranocerta: 101, 103, 109 
Tigris: 87 

Tikranu§:94, 181, 182 
TirazziS: see s.v. Shiraz. 
Tralles:99, 110 
Triparadeisos: 100 
Tukras: 180, 181 
Tyana: 21 
Tyre: 10, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 27, 29, 30, 31, 34, 

35, 47, 65, 67, 92 
Tyros: 111 
UkbakumaS: 180 
Ulhu: 82, 87 
Upirizza: 94, 179 
Ura: 63 
UranduS: 180 
Urartu: 21 
Uruk: 113 
UskannaS: 95 

Vandals: 102, 104, 107, 109, 110 
VispaSiyatiS:94,96, 181 
Ya': see s.v, la* 
Yadnana: see s.v. Iatnana 
Yamanai: 27 
Yauna: 42 
Yavan: 23 
Zagros: 137 
Zela: 92 



ABYDENUS (F.Gr.H. 685) 
F 5: 27 


1.15: 93,102,103,104,108,110,125; 1.16f: 




49; 11.40: 71; 12.21: 51; 17.17: 152; VH 
1.33: 104,114; 3.1: 123; 4.15: 169 

fr.230: 129 


3.82: 92; 119: 112; 132: 154; 137: 135; 
164: 155; 238: 160 

Alcibiades: 169; fr.l: 159; Aspasia: 167; 

vest.XII: 154; 
Callias: 157 


Ag.l 172; 239: 174; 282: 135,148; 

ChoephAiy. 135; 

Eum.m: 135; Pers. 169; 14,15: 140; 134 

465: 168; 535: 140; 891f: 43; 895: 70 

961: 140; Salaminioi: 70; Suppl 282: 69: 

508: 123; 547: 68; 559: 126; 



96, 121, 122: 128 



AGROITAS (F.Gr.H. 762) 
F3: 123 

ALCMAN (ed. Davies) 


Odyss.lOf: 76 


4.10.1: 127; 4.13.1,3: 113,117,123,125, 



HO K = 115 KA: 151; 268 K = 270 KA: 



17K=16KA: 146 


24.5.1: 123 


27K = 27KA:150 

ANACREON (ed. Page, PMG and SLG) 
423 + S313:133;446:127 

ANANIUS (ed. West) 
fr.l: 133 


39 K = 40 KA: 142; 41 K = 42 KA: 141 


2 4K = 24KA:151 



7K = 7KA:152 

ANDOCIDES (and Pseudo-Andocides) 

1 107: 132; 1.128-9: 167; 1.138: 165, 
SlS?; 4.17: 158; 4.22: 167; 4.30f: 

F 60: 159 








9.329: 117; 9.666: 127; 9.668-669, 10.13: 
123; 12.256: 126 


Andromeda, Medea: 151 

36 K = 38 KA: 152; 58 K = 58 KA: 152; 
91 K = 91 KA: 175; 172 K = 170 KA: 
151; 175 K= 173 KA: 150; 196 K= 194 
KA: 152; 201 K = 199 KA: 151; 202K = 
200 KA: 64,141; 205 K = 203 KA: 151; 
224K = 223KA: 151 


fr.58: 123;fr.67: 175 

ANTISTHENES (ed.Decleva Caizzi) 
Cyrus: 157,170; On Kingship: 170 
fr.29: 167 


3.9: 74; 3.14.3: 22,75; ep.3.9: 76 

Fl: 123 

4.1396: 123; 1487: 113 



Mith3S0: 99,101,103,109; SyrA: 17; 52, 

fr.42,93: 133; fr. 196a: 127 


1.3: 102,103,104,105,115; 1.10: 127; 1.17: 


F51: 88,93,102,105,107,110,115,125 


General refs.: 170, 172 
Ach. 61: 140,147,149,150,164,169; 64 
149; 75: 150; 68: 147; 81: 91: 148; 155 
85: 150; 112: 142; 550f: 142; 978: 144; 
181: 145; 162: 146; 613: 140; 647: 146 
670: 174; 694: 145; 833: 142; 995: 126 
1022: 142; 1125: 142; BabyL: 172; Av. 
159, 238: 109; 246: 146; 274: 139; 277 
147; 278: 146; 283: 170; 480-481: 147 
507: 127; 833: 147 1022: 146; 1067, 1089 
109,129; 1260: 146; 1321: 175; 1340: 148 
1757: 123; Eccl. 74: 149; 269: 149; 319: 
149; 544: 149; 601: 146; Eq.: 172; 59 
144, 147; 84, 197ff: 144; 448: 145; 478 
146; 580: 175; 606: 146; 780: 145,146 
810, 967, 1013: 144; 1044: 145; 1086 
144; 1089: 140; 1111: 145; 1321: 175 
1324, 1329: 145; Lys. 88: 127; 229: 149 
219: 174; 285: 146,168; 387f: 69; 647 
174; 653: 132,146; 675: 146; 1032 
146,168; 1133: 146; 1189: 174; 1247: 146 
Nub. 47: 174; 70: 174; 151: 149; 271 
117,123; 967: 140; 972: 128; 983: 156 
984: 175; 986: 145; Pax: 108: 146; 405 
146,147; 420: 69; 1174: 147; 1175: 174 
PlutMO: 150; Ran. 326f: 124; 444: 126 
448f: 124; 938: 147,150; 1296: 146 
Thesm. 142: 149; 337: 146; 446: 41; 734 
149; 806: 146; 823,829: 174; 1175: 147 
TriphaL: 170; Vesp. 10: 146; 498: 148 
548-759: 145; 711: 145; 1078: 145,146 
1084: 145; 1087: 135,149; 1131: 149; 
1135: 139,174; 1143: 140; 1145: 149,174 
fr. 65K = 650 KA: 142; 126K = 141KA: 
149; 230K = 241 KA: 144; 519K = 
532KA: 149; 543K = 556KA: 175 546K 
= 559KA: 147; 61 IK = 624KA: 51, 64; 
679K = 697KA: 128 

ARISTIDES (ed. Jebb) 

AsclepAl: 128; Enc.Rom. 202-3: 157 
225: 115,121; Apella geneth. 71: 129 
hierJog. 287: 128; 332: 117; quatt. 162 


2.3: 127 

ARISTOPHANES (Grammarian) 

hist.anim.epit. [= SuppI.Aristotel.1.1] 
2.130: 104,105,115 


Anal. 94a: 155; HA 617b: 109; 
Afu/u/.393al3:38; NE5.1.2: 153; 8.10.4: 
159; Oec. 1344b35: 156; PA 668al4: 
128; Pol. 2.7.17: 154; 3.13.19: 159,165; 



3.16.12: 156; 5.10.21: 1545.10.25: 154; CLEIDEMUS (F.Gr.H.323) 

5.10.8: 163; 5.10.24: 139,163; 5.11.4,6: 

159; 7.2.9: 155; 8.5.5: 153 

fr. (ed.Rose) 32-36: 158; fr.50: 64; fr.640: 


fr. (ed.Unterst.) 6: 158 


An. 2.3: 118; 4.6:99,102,104,110; 5.25: 

123; 6.28: 137; 6.29: 88,104,115,149; 


Ind. 27: 123,126; 39: 92; 40: 97,101,102, 




7B: 127; 9A: 123; 69A: 127; 74: 127: 
192D: 123; 196D: 81,116; 196E: 123 
197D: 1 16; 207A: 123; 207D: 122; 251A 
150; 35 ID: 128; 397C: 147; 434E: 148 
484C,479E,500E: 152;512A: 156;513A 
123; 514F: 118; 531E-532A: 122; 532F 
93; 535E: 169; 539D: 118; 542A: 123,128 
534B: 175 546A: 139 561D: 128; 573F 
127; 582D: 129; 607D: 116; 609D: 128 
651F: 122; 682D: 93,123,126; 689B: 48 

BEROSSUS (F.Gr.H. 681) 



5 K = 8 KA: 175 

CHARES (F.Gr.H.125) 


4.2: 110,115; 5.1, 6.8: 140 

CHARON (F.Gr.H.262) 
General ref.: 132 

Persai: 143 


defin.5.2: 130; denat.deor.3Sl: 127; de 
orat.3.63: 130; 
desen.59: 104,105 

CLEARCHUS of Soloi (ed. Wehrli) 

19: 64; 43: 101,107,120,121,125; 43- 
44: 104,111,115; 51:150 

F 10: 161 

CLEMENT of Alexandria 

Stromal. 104,124; 
104,124,125; 105,115,124 

Persis: 136 


340 K = 155 KA: 122; 530 K: 129; 34 
Dem. * 193 KA: 129 


21.2:p.72.3: 129 

CORINNA (ed. Page PMG) 
4: 133 


50.23: 129 


2 K = 2 KA: 150; 33 K = 37 KA: 148; 


15 K = 17 KA: 69; 176 K = 187 KA: 
145,165; 259 K = 279 KA: 147 

B 31,32: 161 

CTESIAS (F.Gr.H. 688) 

General ref.: 132, 171, 172 
Fl: 97,99,102,106,107,110,121; F7: 166; 
F13* 155; F14: 144,148,166; F15: 144, 
166- F16, F17: 166; F 24,26,27,28,29: 
166! F30: 39; F34: 102,109; F36: 137; 
F45: 108,150 


4 3 4: 92,118; 4.5.8: 140; 5.1.35: 106; 

5 4 5: 110; 5.4.6: 137; 5.4.33f: 137; 
7.2.22:92; 8.1. 3f: 101; 8.1. llf: 92 


Vif./sKtorap.Phot.347b: 123 







de elocutA26A6\: 150; 132: 117 


9.35: 163; 38: 159; 10.34:140,154; 11.6: 
161; 12.10: 41; 13.10: 167; 14.3: 154 
155; 14,27: 161; 14.32: 155; 14.39: 160: 
14.40: 132; 15.12: 15; 15.15: 157; 15.23 
157; 15.24: 154; 21.58: 169; 24.129 
154; 47.53:93,130; 50.61:128; 53.16 
126; 59.94: 154 

DINON (F.Gr.H. 690) 
132, 171; F3: 116 

DIO (Cassius) 
66.10.4: 128 


2.40:123,127; 3.135f: 93,101; 4.51,53 
61: 140; 7.3,18,46: 112; 7.64,69: 127: 
7.145: 113,123; 8.4: 117; 12.10: 140 
13.4.: 158; 13.14-28: 162; 13.19: 140 
19.18: 17; 25.5: 158; 35.12f: 100; 79.6 


General ref.: 9 

1.59: 115; 68: 35; 2.4: 113; 2.10: 
97,106,1 10,137; 2.13: 97,99,102,106,107 
110, 115; 2.37: 128; 3.4: 123; 3.22: 112: 
3.42: 125; 3.44: 123; 3.68: 123,125; 4.26: 
123; 4.27: 130; 5.9: 101; 5.19: 102,104 
109,110,111,112,125; 5.39: 113; 5.43: 
1 17,125,129; 1 1.44: 43; 12.43,45,78: 1 12: 
14.80: 104,110,115, 125,129; 14.82: 102 
14.98: 10,14,65; 14.110: 10; 15.2^1: 9 
15.2:9,11; 15.3:9,10,11; 15.4:9,11; 15.5 
14; 15.8-9:9; 15.43: 171; 16.41: 109,110, 
115; 16.42: 43; 17 pr.26: 92; 17.47 
92,115,128; 17.50: 125; 17.69f: 137 
17.110: 104; 18.39.1: 100; 19.12: 100: 
19.21:97,102,104,109,125,137; 19.79-86: 
16; 20.8: 112,123; 20.24: 128; 20.46: 16 
20.49: 62; 20.83: 112; 20.102: 104,129: 
20.113: 16; 21.1: 16; 34/35.5: 128 

DIONYSIUS of Halicarnassus 

A/? 2.2; 5.26,54; 6.31,50; 8.12,68,87; 9.61: 

DIONYSIUS of Miletus (F.Gr.H. 687) 
General ref.: 132 

DIONYSIUS AnapLBosp, (GGM ii) 
p.8: 128 


3.17, 3.107: 103,124; 4.8: 124; 4.110: 


40K = 39KA: 152 

DURIS (F.Gr.H.76) 
F5: 148; F 19: 122 

EPHIPPUS (F.Gr.H. 126) 
F4: 115,116 


5K = 5KA: 151; 13K=13KA: 149 

EPHORUS (F.Gr.H. 70) 

General ref s.: 12, 15, 165 


3K = 3KA: 152 


6K = 6 KA: 142 


556: 125; 629: 131 


2 K = 2 KA: 69 


67K = 67KA: 127; 114K = 113KA: 151 

EUPHORION (ed. Powell) 
fr. 154: 123 


2.30: 157; 2.116: 127; 3.5: 128; 3.7: 122: 
3.20: 128,130; 3.39,53: 127; 4.19: 128: 
4.60: 128; 5.39: 128,130; 5.52f: 128,129: 
7.25: 93; 9.36: 128; 9.112: 128; 10.10 
128,130; 10.16f: 128; 10.25: 128 


Marikas: 172 

32 K = 36 KA: 122; 36 K = 41 KA: 147; 
90 K = 106 KA: 145; 123 K = 127 KA: 
145; 192 K « 207 KA: 140,143; 192 KA: 
143; 216 K = 223 KA: 145; 445 K = 481 
KA: 174 




Bacch.:\4f: 139,140; 402: 68; CycL 
general ref.: 170; 182: 134; £/.168: 112; 
171: 127; 714: 117,128, 130; 1113: 
117,130; Hel. general ref.: 170; 68f: 70; 
Her.394: 123; Hipp. 73f: 129; 742: 123; 
IA 141-2: 122; 1543: 126; Ion W60: 135 
77*1429: 135; Or. 1496: 135; 1507: 135; 
1528: 135; Phoen.29l: 135; 1491: 174; 
Rh. 379, 435: 134; 513: 135; Tr. 1021: 
135; 1175: 129; 1217: 132,134 
fr. (ed. Nauck) 740: 122 


ad II. 11.20: 75; 13.582:65; 13.685: 175 


de err. prof. reL 10: 62 


ii 98: 93; vi 542,627-8,634,641: 127; ix 
856: 128; x 492: 127; xvi 586: 128; xvii 
551-563: 128; xviii 131: 128; 
in Plat.Tim.[?3iris 2838] fr.3: 128 


2.26: 104,124; 2.36: 111; 3.13: 104,124; 
10.1:93,105,115,124; 12.2: 115 


HelAO: 135 


ganos: 92 

F119: 133 


2.22: 112; 4.17: 148; 7.23: 110,115 

General ref.: 132 


22(17).3: 102 

General ref.: 171 
F2: 116,152 


1.1= GGM 1.102: 130 

On Pleasure fr. 55: 156 

B14: 135;B107: 133 


47K = 48KA:93;58K = 
K = 63KA: 173;81K = 

= 57KA: 175; 63 
75 KA: 145 


orth.3.2A49 y 49\: 93,100,124 


General ref,: 132 

1.71: 136; 1.74: 36; 1.89: 136; 1.105: 68 
1.111: 112; 1.126: 116,121; 1.131: 116 
1.155f: 176; 1.179: 142; 1.192:97; 1.199: 
68; 2.30: 34; 2.79: 68; 2.111: 118; 2.133: 
122; 2.138: 121; 2.147: 34; 2.156: 121: 
2.159: 33; 2.161: 34; 2.178: 34; 2.182 
35; 3.13: 15; 3.18: 121; 3.19: 15; 3.26 
15; 3.47: 35; 3.89f: 39; 3.113: 165; 3.1 19 
165; 3.151f: 145; 4.109: 121,129; 4.158 
121;4.162:71;4.181: 121,128; 5.31: 38: 
5.51f: 150; 5.92e: 126; 5.113: 44,50 
5.118: 92; 5.122: 70; 5.118: 121; 6.79 
121; 7.5: 121; 7.7b: 121; 7.8: 159; 7.27 
118; 7.30: 118,121; 7.31: 117; 7.33:120 
7.43: 70; 7.90: 68; 8.68,87,93,101,103 
107: 165; 8.98: 148; 8.138: 121,126,148 
9.13; 120; 9.1 lOf: 165; 9.122: 136 


Op.225-247: 127; 77^.215,333,518: 



aloai: 123; asphodelos: 104; ernokomos: 
97,104,124; kaunakes: 149 kepos: 127; 
Kinyradai: 62; Kinyras: 75; paradeisos: 
107 Rhoikou krithopompai: 74 


9.223: 127; 34.35: 140; 35.62: 123 




de morb.pop. 3,13: 128 







HIPPONAX (ed. West) 

2A,67, 115: 133; 125: 68 

A 2.17.3, B 2.17.4, G 2.17.12: 100; A 
3.17.27, B 3.17.13, G 3.17.17: 104,105; 
Lp.61.20: 104, 110 


8.250, 10.137: 104 


tfym.7.28: 68; Apoll.229: 122; //. 2.693 
121; 2.867: 133; 6.418f: 127; 8.284: 70: 
8.306: 129 1 1.20: 74; 18.561: 93; 21.257: 
128; Od. 4.83: 68; 6.297: 126; 7.1 12: 93 
9.197: 117; 14.5: 112; 17.205: 117,121 
17.425:68; 19.109-114: 127; 24.205: 93 

IBYCUS (ed. Davies) 
286: 127 

ION (ed. Snell) 
fr.59: 135 


4.7: 171; 5.11:130 


General ref.: 11, 12 

2.4: 158; 3.2: 60; 3,31: 39; 3.32: 160: 
3.36: 64; 3.52: 64; 4.67: 155; 4.88: 157 
4.89-90: 160; 4.96: 148; 4.117: 160 
4.126: 159; 4.134: 159,162; 4.137: 155 
4.138: 162; 4.140: 9,11,12; 4.141: 11,12, 
155; 4.145: 154,159; 4.147: 157; 4.149 
155; 4.150: 157,160,161,163; 4,152: 156 
4.153: 166; 4.154: 157;4.155: 158;4.157f: 
153; 4.161: 10,11; 4.162: 155; 4.163: 15 
4.165: 155; 4.166: 159,160; 4.179: 158 
5.42: 153,154; 5.66: 155; 5.76: 153; 5.90: 
154,168; 5.99: 154; 5.100: 161; 5.103 
161,166; 5.104: 156; 5.124: 161; 5.126 
155; 5.127: 161; 5.132: 155; 5.137: 161 
5.139: 162,163; 6.42: 132; 6.84: 160; 
7.8,10: 153; 7.51: 154; 7.80: 61,154; 8.1 1 
61; 9.38: 64; 9.42: 64; 9.46: 60; 9.47f: 66: 
9.54: 41; 9.58: 154; 9.62: 10,11; 9.63 
159; 9.66: 62; 9.67: 66; 9.70f: 64; 9.76; 
61; 10.61-62: 12; 12.42: 153; 12.43^4 
11; 12.47: 160; 12.52: 132; 12.59: 161 
12.60: 160; 12.83: 160; 12.102: 153 

12.157-8: 154; 12.159: 153,161; 12.160: 
160; 12.163: 153; 12.167: 160; 12.202: 
153; 14.59: 132; 14.61: 160; 15.40: 61; 
15.69: 60; 15.159: 160; 15.167: 44; 
15.233: 132; 15.307: 132; 16.18: 154; 
16.27: 132; 16.29-31: 11 


InJov. 1.45: 


de beatis orient/. 



AJ 1.196: 112; 7.347: 102,109,115,116, 
121; 8.146: 19; 8.186: 102,110,111; 
9.225: 109,111,121; 9.283: 19; 9.284 
20,29; 10.41: 107; 10.46: 115,121; 10.91 
112; 10.220: 106; 10.228: 34; 12.229f: 
99,102,110,111; 12.231: 112,113; 15.96 
111; BJ 1.361: 111; 2.57: 112; 4.467 
97,106, 110,111; 5.176: 123; 5.227: 112 
5.241: 112; 6.62: 104,111,115; Ap. 1.119 
19; 1.141: 106; 1.156:34 


Enc.Euseb. 17: 155; ep.21.5-6: 123 


11.7, 10: 118; 15.1: 16; 15.2: 16 


14.319: 130 

la: 140 

PG 107.772: 99 

LIBANIUS (& ps.-Libanius) 

declam.27. 1.1 8, 40.2.67: 126; epist. 18.3: 
129; 22.2: 123; 85.1: 129; 1197.4: 129; 
1257.2: 123; or,1.121f: 117; 4.12: 123, 
125; 11.17: 131; 11.200: 109,123; 207 
130; 11.234-6: 123,125,126,128; 11.266: 
122; 12.81: 117; 13.18: 123,129; 18.28 
131; 18.77: 117 18.225: 123; 18.243 
123,126; 22.31: 123,127; 27.22: 127; 47.5 
128; 61.7: 128;pr^.8.6.10:124; 12.9.1f: 
93,123,128; 12.9.3: 126 12.9.4: 123 
12.9.5: 109; 12.30.14: 103,121 




24.33: 122; 

33.41: 17 

388: 152; fr.24,76: 152; fr.269: 
fr.349,353,437,668,678: 152 



proem: 126 

1.1: 126; 6,22: 112 

2.3: 93,102,106,109,123,126; 8: 112; 12: 

102,125; 24,33: 112; 3.5,6,10: 112; 4.1.: 

112; 2f: 93,97,101,102,103,104,105,107, 

108,109,111,115,126; 11: 101,107; 15: 

112; 16: 115; 18,23,29: 112; 30: 115 


amor. 12: 123,129; asin. 17: 112,113; 
31:112; imag. 4: 1 17,127; 6: 1 17; 27: 64; 
de dea SyrAX: 112; dial.mer. 7: 117; 
Dion 6: 93; Gall. 21: 109,124,125; 
lexiph.5: 129; pro imag.%, 18: 117; 
rhet.praec. 8: 76; VH 1.34: 127; 2.23: 


450f, 452: 70 


1.108: 163 




12; 2.25: 161; 27: 154; 19.25: 157; 27.4: 


fr. (ed. B-S) 58: 149 

MACHON (ed. Gow) 
XVIII: 129 


Lydians: 143 


14.2: 44 


(ed. Page) 757: 122 

MELEAGER (ed. Gow & Page) 
78: 126 


Dysc. 923: 152; Kolax 40,90: 152; Sicyon. 


Persis: 151 
2K = 2KA: 151 


Paus. 2.1:47 


3.1140f: 126 

ORPHEUS (ed. Abel) 
de lap.. 234: 126 

ORPHICA (ed. Kern) 
fr.32f: 124,126 


Vit.Joann.Chrys.%\: 115 

PANYASSIS (ed. Bernabe) 
fr.l 1:123 


(ed. Westermann) 
215: 155 


1.3:41,75; 1.6: 16; 1.7: 17; 1.19: 117,128 
1.21: 104,125; 1.27: 117,127,128; 2.1 
126; 2.1 1: 122; 2.27: 93; 2.28: 127; 3.24 
128; 5.19: 117; 7.5: 92; 7.21: 122,123 
7.27: 93; 8.24: 127; 8.31: 93; 8.37: 93 
9.24: 122; 9.39: 122; 10.8: 117 


64K = 70KA: 174; 100K = 106 KA: 174; 
128-129K = 134-135KA: 143; 130K = 
137KA: 143,153; 133K = 140KA: 143 

F 16c: 123 


87K = 90KA:152 


Apoll.l.lZ: 101; 2.26: 128; 2.27: 


Heroid.9.2-3: 121; 54.2-3: 126; Imag. 

1.6: 121,126; 2.5: 155,167; 31: 52 


220 Indices 

Indices 221 


F41: 101 


General ref.: 13 


lex. 383: 102,104,106,115,120 


Phoenissae: 134,169; Capture of Miletus: 


NemAA6 y 4.76: 70; 8.1 8f: 76; 8.28: 74; 
O. 2.77f: 124; 3.13: 117; 9.27: 117,129; 
13.109: 93; Pyth.2: 76; 2.15: 62; 2.25: 
71; 5.24: 117;9.6,53f: 131;9.55: 117 
fr. (ed. Maehler) 122: 127; fr.l29f: 


Ale. general ref.: 164,170,172; 105C: 163 
120A: 153,163; 121 Aff.: 169; 121B: 166; 
121C: 157; 121D: 156,163,167; 122B 
161; 123A: 161,163; 123B: 161; 123C: 
166,168; 122E: 158 123C: 154; Apol 
40D: 162; Axioch. 377C: 124; Charmid. 
158A: 147,156; CriftMlOD, 112B: 93,128: 
115B: 130117B: 123; Epist. 313A,319A 
128; 320D: 163; 332AB: 156,163; 347A, 
348B,349C: 128; Gorg. 470E: 162,163 
483E,525E: 160; HippMin. 368C: 161 
Ion 534: 129;Z^c/i.l91D: 155; Leg. 164; 
637D: 155,161; 660C: 74; 685C: 153,159; 
693D-698A: 162;693D: 159;694A-698A: 
169; 694D-695D: 167; 695A: 138,156: 
695D: 161; 697F: 155,159; 761F: 117 
808D: 133; 845A: 128; 845C: 128 
Lys.209D: 153; 21 IE: 161; Men. 78D: 
161; A#i/i.316A: 153; Mnx. 239D: 163 
240D: 160; 241E,245C: 153; 276B: 117 
Phaedr.239C: 107; 255B: 128; 258C 
156,163; 276B: 129; Politic. 264C: 103, 
161; Rep. 336A: 160; 372B: 129; 420E: 
174;441B: 133; 469B: 154; 553C: 162 
556D: 107; 572E: 158; 572E: 135 614Cf: 
124; Symp.203B: 117,127,130; TimAAK 
133; 77C: 128 


Adonis: 64 

119 K= 127 KA: 150; 120-121 K= 128- 

129 KA: 150; 126 K = 134 KA: 150; 183 
K=189KA: 146; 208 K = 230 KA: 141; 
220 K = 239 KA: 148; 229 K = 255 KA: 


Natural History 

5.82: 100; 5.93: 99; 5.129: 74; 5.130: 128 

6.18:128;6.214:99; 8.195:74; 9.170 

106 ; 12.7: 106,114; 71: 12.104; 13.41 

92; 16.88: 121,127; 33.137:118; 37.6 



Ale. 23: 167; 24: 102,105,110; Alex. 12: 
130; 7: 128; 32: 78; 40: 101; Arat.5: 128; 
AristM: 127; Artox. 25: 100, 104, 
110,114; 27: 155; C/m.13: 122; 19: 67; 
Dion. 19: 128; £>/r.5-6,15-16,32-33: 16; 
50: 101,111,115; Luc. 39: 106; 
Mor. 88B: 131; 148B: 123; 260B: 130: 
340D: 92,118; 342B: 106; 344A: 140; 
508D: 112; 603F: 128,129; 628C: 127 
648C: 104,109,114; 688E; 128; 776D: 
122; 842E: 128; 927B: 128; 974D: 109 
1084B: 100; Mc.27: 112; Pelop.: 30: 
150; Pomp 24: 112; PyrrhA6: 123 
Sull.\2: 122; 31: 131; Them.%: 93 
Thes.20: 127; Timol.39: 127 


2.29: 129; 4.100: 148; 6.11: 149; 9.13: 
120; 10.123: 149; 10.137: 152 


4.7: 16; 7.3: 34; 8.27: 155 


4.4.1: 112; 16.1.6: 117; 18.6.4: 117; 


Epistathmos: 152 

F70: 106,111 


aed.\.3.6: 102,105,109,1 10,125; 6.7: 102, 
104,105,110,111 bell.3.\l, 4.6, 4.13: 
102,104,107,109, 110,111,115,125 


5.14.6, 1.2p.977.9: 100 



SAPPHO (ed. Lobel & Page) 
2: 126 

SCHOLIA in Aeschylum 
Sept.212: 117 

SCHOLIA in Homerum 
/.l 1.20: 69; 23.130: 70 

SCHOLIA in Lucianum 
VH2.23: 124 

SCHOLIA in Pindarum 

O. 13.109:93; Pyth.2.\21:10 

SCYLAX (Pseudo-) 

praef.:38; 108: 123; 114:38 


epist. 21.10 

SILENUS (F.Gr.H. 175) 
F4: 122,123 


F4: 147 


4/.434f, 1013f, 1019, 1262, 1299f: 70; 

07 , 327,387: 135; Philoct.: 170; Teukros: 

70; Trach.\099: 123; 

fr. [ed. Radt] 125: 135; 135: 135; 183 

135; 320: 130; 520: 135; 578: 70; 579ab 

70; 609: 135; 620: 135; 634: 135; 956 


STEPHANUS of Byzantium 

Kypros: 74; paradeisos: 99; Psessoi: 128 

STESICHORUS (ed. Davies) 
S8: 123 


3.2.3: 123; 3.5.7: 128; 5.1.8,9: 127; 5.3.8 
122,127; 6.1.15: 127; 8.3.12: 126; 8.3.19: 
127; 8.6.22: 126; 10.5.11: 128; 11.2.10: 

128; 12.3.11: 128; 13.1.17: 92; 13.1.29: 
127; 14.1.31: 127; 14.2.10: 38; 14.5.10; 
63; 14.6.3: 50,70,92,117, 127,128; 15 
1.68: 104,114; 15.3.1: 110,137; 15.3.2 
135; 15.3.6, 10-11: 137; 15.3.7: 88,104, 
105; 15.3.18: 128; 16.1.5:97,106; 16.1.11 
104,114; 16.1.14: 117; 16.1.41: 110 
16.2.6: 123,125; 16.2.18: 74; 16.2.19: 100; 
16.2.41: 97,106,1 1 1; 16.4.21: 128; 17.1.9 
123; 17.1.10: 128; 17.1.18: 34; 17.2.2 


Zop.Perit: 143; 56K = 59KA: 174 


Akademeia: 122; Antisthenes: 158; 
katagerasai: 75; mousaknes: 127; Rhoikou 
krithopompai: 74; Sardanapalous: 75; 
telesporos: 140 


Hist.2.2-4: 62 


22K = 25KA: 175 


237C: 123 


829: 133 


char.l: 130; 10: 128; 20: 128; de lap. 
4.5,6.35:48; HP 2.6.7:92; 3.4.13:124 
4.2.7: 124; 4.4.1: 104,109,111, 114,125; 
4.4.2: 124; 4.4.4: 104; 4.5.6 
50,104,106,109, 114,127; 4.13.12: 127 
5.1.30: 92; 5.8.1: 104,111,114; 5.8.3: 127 
6.6.4: 126; 7.4.5: 93; 7.5.2: 128; 8.7.4, 
11.5, 11.6, 11.7: 124; 9.1.3: 124; 9.6.1 
97,105,114; 9.6.4: 97,105,114; 9.15.7; 
135; fr.395: 128 

General ref.: 11,13,171 
F31: 122; F62: 175; F89: 93,128; F103: 
9,11,13,65,75,76; F105: 175; F114: 44; 
F135: 93,128; F226: 128 




29K « 30KA: 148; 30K = 31KA: 
105KA: 147 



3.23.2: 123 





General ref.: 132 

1.6: 156,172; L69: 159; 1.77: 160,165 
1.89: 157; 1.94: 43; 1.106: 93; 1.109: 48 
1.112: 43; 1.128: 157; 1.130: 160,161 
2.13: 173; 2.38: 173; 2.40: 172; 2.62: 130; 
2.97: 157; 3.34: 155; 3.62: 160; 4.86 
160; 6.33: 132; 6.58: 157; 7.82: 93 
8.25: 155; 8.27: 155; 8.47: 160; 8.54: 160; 
8.80: 161; 8.109: 165 

TRAG.FRAG.ADESP. (ed. Kannicht & Snell) 
5d: 66; 5e: 132; 1 18a: 135; 372: 134; 592: 
135,136; 700a: 135 





XENOPHANES (ed. West) 
3: 133 


General refs.: 132, 171 
Anab. L2.7f: 100,102,110,115; 1.4.10: 
102,110,111; 1.9. Iff: 152; 1.10,2: 52 
2.4.9: 105; 2.4.14: 104,109,111; 2.4.16: 
99, 104,109,111; 5.3.7f: 124; 6.1.9: 148 
7.5.8: 92; Cyneg. 1.9: 70; Cyr. 1.1.4: 
159; 1.2.3: 128; 1.3.14: 100,128; 1.4.5 
100,128; 1.4.11: 100,128; 7.1.4: 52; 7.4.2: 
39; 8.1.38: 100,109,1 11; 8.6.12: 100,110; 
8.6.21: 159; 8.8.1: 159; 8.8.15: 106; Hell 
1.6.6f:152; 3.1. lOf: 165; 4.1.11:80,101 
4.1. 15f: 93,100,110,111; 4.1.31: 80: 
4.1.33: 104,110,111,115; 4.8.24: 12 
7.1.38: 118; Oec. 152; 4.13: 120; 4.14; 
102,104,105,1 10; 4.20: 104,105, 110,111, 
115, 128 


Ath.PoL 1.10,2.8: 173 


7.10: 126; 7.11: 109; 9.18: 17 


Agora XII 


734: 127,130 


3: 48; 4: 62; 5: 62; 13: 74; 14: 74; 16: 62 
17: 62; 83: 73; 128: 48; 143: 48; 149: 48 
164: 73; 180b: 61; 182: 72,73; 183: 74 
187: 56; 215: 66,72; 216: 66,72,127; 217 
39,45,50, 61; 220: 61,72; 224: 52; 258: 
74; 260: 73; 270: 74; 291: 74; 296: 74 
298: 74; 302: 73; 309: 52; 327: 61; 338 
74; 368: 52; 427: 73; 


i 3 113: 41; 417-423, 425: 130 

ii 2 2494: 128 

vii43: 117; 1828: 126 

ix.2.147: 117 


xii.5.872: 130 

xii.8.265: 128 


xii suppl.353: 117,128 


25: 49; 26: 72; 27: 74; 54: 56; 65: 49; 66: 
49; 89: 49; 104: 49; 218: 61 


8: 107,111 


206: 104,125 





Marmor Parium 
239 B 16,21: 16 




Meiggs & Lewis, GHI 


765: 113 


4.81f: 73; 13.14 (no. 17): 73 

Sardis VII 


26.1029: 117; 27.966: 73; 28.1303: 73; 
29.1577,1581: 73; 30.1606: 73; 33.167b: 
128; 39.1365: 62 

SIG 3 

46: 112,128,130; 169: 112; 178,306: 130; 
344: 112; 364: 113; 463: 109,115; 768: 
113; 1005: 117; 1106: 117 

Tod, GHI 
202: 130 


BGU50: 104,105; 567: 104,105; 603: 104,105 
1119: 126; 1120: 93; 1740: 105; 1772; 
100; 1896:98,105,118; 1899: 105; 2376 
102; 2377: 98; 2441: 105; 2459: 98 

CPG2/3 1:98 

CPR 1.24=25: 104,105; 208: 104,105 

P.Athen.17: 102 

PCZ: 59033: 104; 59075: 112; 59125: 104; 
59157: 98,104,105,119; 59184: 98,104, 
105,125; 59359: 126 59629: 99; 59825: 

P.Columb.l: 104 

P.Congr.XV 15: 105 

P.Dural5: 111 

P.Flor: 98 

P.Fouad67: 105; 69: 98 

P.Giss.Univ.3: 105 

P.Gur.8: 104 

P.Hamb.99: 97,105 

P.Harris: 81 

P.Heidelb.310: 105 


P.Herm.7: 104,105 

P.Koln.100: 102,104,105 

P.Lond.933: 104,105; 2043: 100 

P.Mich.24: 104; 45: 102,104,125; 182-183 
104; 193: 104; 223-225: 97; 223; 98; 224 
98; 225: 98; 272: 102,104,105,107; 282 

P.Mil.Vogl.23: 105 


P.Oxy. 9: 126; 213: 135; 249: 98; 639: 
102,104,105; 648,693: 98; 1437: 98; 1452: 
98; 2625: 109; 2737: 146; 3136,3141, 
3154: 98; 3205: 98,100,105; 3283: 98; 
3366: 109,125 


P.Ryl.195: 104; 206: 107; 215: 98 

P.Sarap.56: 128 

PSI 33: 105; 158: 128; 240: 105; 333: 104; 
650: 104; 697: 125; 708, 732: 98; 1059: 
125; 1285: 136 

P.Strab.619: 105 

P.Tebt.60,118: 98; 61a: 98,105,118; 64: 105 
80: 98; 86: 118; 343: 104,118; 503: 98 
700: 98; 703: 110; 815: 104,105; 1001 
98; 1117:98; 1120:98 

P.Turin 1966:81 

P.Turner 38,42: 98 


224 Indices 



P.Upps.Frid.6: 98 

105: 86; 110: 86; 112: 86; 114: 86; 118: 
20,23,24; 11 9f: 83,86,118; 127: 118; 130: 

Heidel 1956 Pe 
12-15 i 38-56: 26,28; 14 i 57: 28; 28 iv 


118; 160f: 82; 164-7: 82; 170: 25; 184: 
116; 186: 24,26; 194-195: 23; 235: 115; 


P.Warren 12: 104,105 

236: 118; 239: 27; 261-262: 82; 265: 115; 
279: 82; 286: 27; 310: 26; 319: 27; 326: 


34:48; 193:34 

P.Yale 69, 71: 98 

27; 329: 27; 331-343: 82; 332: 118; 333: 
83,86; 356: 27; 363: 83; 368: 85; 376: 85; 

Kition III 

P.Zen.Col.63: 125 

395: 85; 397: 83; 400: 1 18; 414: 85; 435: 
83; 436: 118; 437: 116; 487: 118; 527: 


SB 2376: 102; 6002: 98; 7188: 104,105; 7262: 

21,28; 528: 28,29; 556: 28; 587: 18; 656: 

Knudtzon 1893 

104,105; 7990: 98; 9387: 104,105; 10891: 

118; 659E: 118; 690: 26,42; 697: 26; 698: 


98; 11113: 104,105; 11711: 93,104,105; 

85; 710: 27; 728: 118; 771: 30; 775: 27; 

11893: 98; 12200: 98; 12208: 105 

779: 19,29; 780: 19; 784: 30; 785: 34; 
837: 86 847: 19,29; 848: 19; 867: 25; 

Langdon 1912 

84 ii 16, 106H24, 138.54: 106 

UPZ 114: 100; 117: 102,107; 334: 106 

876: 30; 900: 30; 901: 32; 912: 19; 935: 


118; 970: 19,29; 1020-1026: 83 

Larnax (ed. Lane 1969) 


2, 3: 47 







137-8, 167: 118 





83: 26,28; 91,95,96,98,99: 33; 103f: 38,63; 


Lie 1929 


105: 38; 125: 28; 126: 26,28; 155: 118 

76-8: 24; 1 18f: 24; 120-121: 23; 457f: 24 


65: 87; 175: 30; 247: 87; 366: 83; 375: 
87; 427: 83; 795: 30; 992: 19 


167: 83; 275: 20; 276: 20; 284: 24,25,26; 
285: 23; 286: 287: 26,27; 288: 26,27; 23; 
290: 21,26,28,29; 291: 26,29,42; 294: 32; 
295: 19,29; 296: 19; 297: 19,21; 305: 118; 
308: 37; 332: 34; 478: 81; 533: 18; 558f: 
86; 559b(ii),(iii): 83 


1.247: 83; 249-254: 86; 252: 118; 253 
83; 375: 83; 392: 83; 410: 83; 476: 20: 
479: 20; 480: 82; 518: 20,83; 605: 20; 
608: 82; 610: 20; 620: 82; 631: 83; 672: 
82; 681: 82; 723: 83; 724: 82; 739: 118 
753: 118; 769: 21; 776: 82; 792: 82; 800: 
22; 801: 21; 802: 21 
2.2: 24; 5: 22; 9: 24; 16: 24; 18: 23; 30: 
23; 32: 82; 35: 25; 39: 82; 42^14: 24; 44: 
26; 47: 25; 54: 23,25; 55: 23; 56: 24; 62- 
63: 23; 65: 28,29; 68: 118; 70: 24,26,1 16: 
71: 24; 72f: 86; 74: 115; 79: 23; 80: 
23,25,26; 82: 23,25; 83: 83,85; 92: 
23,25,26,83,1 18; 96: 23,25; 97: 23,25,86: 
98: 23,25,86; 99: 23,25,26; 102: 23,25,86; 


10113: 36; 103000: 85; 33041: 37; 46226: 

Borger, Asarhaddon 

21, p.33, Klch.A.16f: 28; 27, p.50 Ep. 
7.39f: 28; 27, p.60, ep.21. 54-82: 42; 27, 
p.61f ep.22.1-34: 85; 57, p.86 AsBbE.3f: 
28; 57, p.86, AsBbE.lOf: 27; 67, p.102, 
Mnm.C.34: 28; 71, p.l 10 frt.B.14: 28 


39: 38; 74: 38; 86: 38; 94: 37 


1.5: 20; 1.10: 78; 1.11: 78; 1.47: 63; 1.75: 
48; 1.92: 78 


212: 113 

Coptic Cambyses Romance: 36 


14.50: 118; 16.46: 82; 22.1981: 104,113; 
53.391: 18 

Gadd 1954 

192 (Prism D/E vii 25^14): 24 

Luckenbill 1924 

97,101, 111, 124: 85; 113 viii 116f: 83 


400: 18; 2769: 24; 3411: 23 

Nimrud Letters 

XII (= ND 2715): 18, 20, 23; LXIX (= 
ND 2370): 23 

Old Testament 

Amos 9.14: 81; CantAli: 102; 4.13: 
104,105; 4.15: 102; 

IChron. 1.7: 23; II Chron.33. 20: 107,115 
Dan.\3AJ: 93,115; DeutMAO: 81,128 
Eccl.2Af: 81,115; Esther 1.5, 7.7-8: 92 
116; Ezek. Gen.ref.: 34; 17.11-21,29-31 
34; 26.7,10-11: 34; 26.15: 34; 27.6: 23 
27.13: 20; 28.13: 81; 28.20: 35; 31.8: 83 
Gen. 2-3: 81;2.10: 102; 3.8-10: 121 10.4 
23; Isaiah 1.8: 81; 23.1: 22, 23; 23.12 
20, 23; 58.11: 81,128; Jerem. 2.10: 34 
29.4f: 81; 31.12: 81,128; 37.5-11: 34 
39.4: 81; 52.7: 81; Job 8.16: 81; / Kings 
21.1-2: 81; II Kings 9.27: 81; 17.1-4: 22; 
21.8: 81; 24.7: 33; 25.4: 81; // Mace. 
13.1f: 166;Lam.2.6:81;AfeA.2.8: 104,114; 
Numb. 11.5: 81; 24.24: 23 


Persepolis Fortification Tablets 

(i) PF 144: 94; 145: 94; 146-148: 94; 
149: 94,97; 150-155: 94,95; 156: 94; 157 
94,95 158: 96; 159: 94; 160: 94; 280 
108; 285: 96; 697-698: 108; 943-944 
95; 971: 96; 1224: 138; 1499: 96; 1722- 
1723: 108; 1815: 94,96,114; 1943: 108; 
1945: 108; 1946:94; 1947: 96; 2014: 108; 
2034: 108 2042: 96; 2072: 138; 2075: 95 
(ii) PFa 33: 94,95 

(iii) Cl-85: 94; Cl-222: 94; Cl-331: 
94,96; Cl-619: 94,95; Cl-800: 96; Cl- 
813: 94; Cl-817: 94; Cl-989: 94; Cl- 
1 156: 94; Cl-1 178: 94; Cl-1439: 94; Cl- 
1455: 94; Cl-1505: 94; Cl-1981: 94; Cl- 
1991: 94; Cl-2141: 94; Cl-2445: 94; E- 
2225: 108;J-2213: 108;J-2610: 108; K2- 
1273: 108; Ll-1012: 43; Ll-1132: 95; 
Ll-1427: 95; Ll-1490: 95 Ll-1612: 
43,94,95; Ll-2409: 42,43; Ll-2526: 95; 
M-853: 95; M-1083: 95; M-1086: 95; M- 
1165: 95; Q-1888: 43; Sl-28, Sl-99, Sl- 
100, Sl-103, Sl-611, S-655: 108: 108; 
T-1280: 96; T-1368: 94,96; T-1752: 138; 
V-260: 94,96; V-2259: 94,95; W-521, W- 
568, W-574, W-757: 108; W-2271: 95; 
W-2280: 94; W-2539, W-2672, W-2673: 
108; Fort.1364, Fort.3125, Fort.6381, 
Fort.8621: 108 

Persepolis Treasury Tablets 

PT 5: 138; 48: 94,95; 49: 43,94,95,96; 
54,55: 43,95; 59: 94,95,96; 1963-9: 94,95 

Persian Royal Inscriptions 

A 2 Sd: 93; DB: 156; 32-33: 166; DH: 
145; DNb: 143; DPh: 88, 145 

Pfeiffer 1935 
137: 19 

Piepkorn 1933 
36 ii 7: 27 

Postgate 1974a 

157(139-140), 197 (198): 83 


1.1: 24; 1.132: 82; 1.153: 30; 1.160: 82 
1.177: 82; 1.179: 82; 2.5: 18; 2.275AB 
82; 3.16: 83; 3.32: 86; 3.41: 82; 4.92: 29 



Streck 1916 Videvdad 

17: 19; 22 ii 1 14: 34; 178: 25; PI 12.7: 25 3.18: 93 


Herausgegeben von Heinz Heinen, Francois Paschoud, Kurt Raaflaub, Hildegard Temporini und 

Gerold Walser 






VAB: 4.105 


3.133: 113 

Wiseman 1952 
30.36f: 86 

1. Gerold Walser: Caesar und die Germanen. 
Studien zur politischen Tendenz romischer 
Feldzugsberichte. 1956. XI, 104 S., kt. 

ISBN 3-515-00250 -2 

2. Edmund Buchner: Der Panegyrikos des 
Isokrates. Eine historisch-philologische Unter- 
suchung. 1958. IX, 170 S., kt. 0251 -2 

3. Wolf Steidle: Sallusts historische Mono- 
qraphien. Themenwahl und Geschichtsbild 
(vergriffen) 0252 - 9 

4. Ulrich Kahrstedt: Die wirtschaftliche Lage 
Groflgriechenlands in der Kaiserzeit 1960. 
VII, 133 S., 1 Faltkte., kt. 0253 -7 

5. Dieter Timpe: Untersuchungen zur Konti- 
nuitat des fruhen Prinzipates. 1 962. VIII, 133 
S.,kt. 0254-5 

6. Hatto H. Schmitt: Untersuchungen zur Ge- 
schichte Antiochos' des GroBen und seiner 
Zeit. 1964. XII, 320 S. m. 9 Ktn., 1 Taf., kt. 

0255 - 3 

7. Gerold Walser, Hrsg.: Neuere Hethiter- 

0256 - 1 

8. Joseph Vogt: Sklaverei und Humanitat. Stu- 
dien zur antiken Sklaverei und ihrer Erfor- 
schung, 2., erweiterte Aufl. 1972. XII, 1 70 S. kt. 
(siehe auch Nr. 44) 0257 -X 

9. Eberhard Ruschenbusch: Solonos nomoi. 
Die Fragmente des solonischen Gesetzeswer- 
kes mit einer Text- und Uberlieferungsge- 
schichte. Unveranderter Nachdruck 1983 der 
Ausgabe von 1966. X, 140 S., kt. 0258 . 8 

10. Jakob Seibert: Historische Beitrage zu den 
dynastischen Verbindungen in hellenisti- 
scher Zeit 1 967. 1 38 S., kt. 0259 - 6 

11. Robert E. A. Palmer: The King and the 
Comitium. A Study of Rome's Oldest Public 
Document. 1969. XIII, 55 S., 5 Taf., kt.0260 -X 

12. Richard Alexander Baumann: The Duumviri 
in the Roman Criminal Law and in the 
HoratiusLegend. 1969. IV, 35 S., kt. 0261 - 8 

13. Donald W. Knight: Some Studies in Athe- 
nian Politics in the Fifth Century B. C. 1970. 
IV,44S.,kt. 0262-6 

14 Joachim Szidat: Caesars diptomatische 

' Tatigkeitim Gallischen Krieg. 1970. VIII, 162 

S.,kt. 263 " 4 

15. Kenneth Hugh Waters: Herodotos on Ty- 
rants and Despots. A Study in Objectivity. 
1971.VI, 100S.,kt. 0264-2 

16 Charles W. Fornara: The Athenian Board of 
" Generals from 501 to 404. 1971. X, 84 S„ kt 

0265 - 

17 Justus Cobet: Herodots Exkurse und die 
Frage nach der Einheit seines Werkes. 1 971 . 
X,207S.,kt. . „ 0266 -9 

18. Gerold Walser, Hrsg.: Beitrage zur 
Achamenidengeschichte. 1972. VI, 107 S 
w 0267 - 7 

19 Peter J. Bicknell: Studies in Athenian Poli- 
' tics and Genealogy. 1972. VIII, 1 12 S., kt. 

0268 - 5 

20 Heinz Heinen: Untersuchungen zur helleni- 
stischen Geschichte des 3. Jahrhunderts v. 
Chr. Zur Geschichte der Zeit des Ptolemaios 
Keraunos und zum Chremonideischen Krieg. 
1972. XII, 229 S., 2 Ktn., kt. 0269 - 3 

21. Edmund F. Bloedow: Alcibiades re- 
examined, (vergriffen) . 0270-7 
22 Derek J. Mosley: Envoys and Diplomacy in 
' Ancient Greece. 1973. X, 97 S., kt. 1194- 3 
23. Philip Tyler: The Persian Wars of the 3rd 

Century A. D. and Roman Imperial Monetary 
Policy, A. D. 253 - 68. (vergriffen) 1915 - 4 

24. John Pinsent: Military Tribunes and Plebe- 
ian Consuls: The Fasti from 444 V to 342 V. 
1975. VIII, 83 S.,kt. 1899-9 

25. Hans Armin Gartner: Beobachtungen zu 
Bauelementen in der antiken Historiogra- 
phies besonders bei Livius und Caesar. 
1975.VI,182S.,kt. 1869-7 

26. George John Stagakis: Studies in the Home- 
ric Society, (vergriffen) 1988 - X 

27. Gary A. Crump: Ammianus Marcellinus as a 
Military Historian, (vergriffen) 1984-7 

28. John Nicols: Vespasian and the partes 
Flavianae. 1978. X, 186 S., kt. 2393-3 

29. Robert B. Kebric: In the Shadow of Mace- 
don: Duris of Samos. 1977. XII, 99 S., kt. 


30. Getzel M. Cohen: The Seleucid Colonies: 
Studies in Founding, Administration and Orga- 
nization, (vergriffen) 2581 - 2 

31. Joachim Szidat: Historischer Kommentar 
zu Ammianus Marcellinus Buch XX - XXI. Teil 
I: Die Erhebung lulians. 1977. 200 S. f kt. 

2642 - 8 

32. Eeva Ruoff-Vaananen: Studies on the Italian 
Fora. 1978. X, 81 S., kt. 2761 - 

33. Jack M. Balcer: The Athenian Regulations 
for Chalkis. Studies in Athenian Imperial Law. 

1978. XIV, 145 S., 3 Taf., kt. 2773 - 4 

34. Daniel Gillis: Collaboration with the 
Persians. 1979. VIM, 87 S., kt. 2786 - 6 

35. Ralf Urban: Wachstum und Krise des Ar- 
chaischen Bundes. Quellenstudien zur Ent- 
wicklung des Bundes von 280 bis 222 v. Chr. 

1 979. IX, 236 S. m. 3 Ktn., kt. 2861 - 7 

36. Thomas S. Burns: The Ostrogoths. Kingship 
and Society. 1980. IX, 144S.,kt. 2967-2 

37. Peter Funke: Hom6noia und Arch6. Athen 
und die griechische Staatenwelt vom Ende des 
Peloponnesischen Krieges bis zum Kdnigsfrie- 
den (404/3 - 387/6 v. Chr.) 1980. XI, 197 S., kt. 

3007 - 7 

38. Joachim Szidat: Historischer Kommentar 
zu Ammianus Marcellinus Buch XX - XXI. Teil 
II: Die Verhandlungsphase. 1 981 .VII, 1 04 S. m. 
2Ktn.,kt . . t 3 j™-? 

39. Giovanni Brizzi: I sistemi informativi dei 
Romani. Principi e realta nell'eta delle conqui- 
ste oitremare (218 -168 a. C). 1982. XIX 282 
S kt 3628-8 

40. Heinz Heinen / Karl Stroheker / Gerold Wals- 
er, Hrsg.: Althistorische Studien. Hermann 
Bengtson zum 70. Geburtstag dargebracht 
von Kollegen und Schulem. 1 983. VII, 257 S. m. 
7Taf..kt. . u 3230-4 

41. Herbert GraBI: Sozialokonomische Vorstel- 
lungen in der kaiserzeitlichen griechischen 
Literatur(1.^3. Jh. n. Chr.). 1982. VII, 231 S., 
kt 3667 - 9 

42. Klaus M. Girardet: Die Ordnung der Welt: Ein 
Beitrag zurphilosophischen und politischen In- 
terpretation von Ciceros Schrift De legibus. 
1983. VIII, 260 S.,kt. 3687-3 

43. Karl-Heinz Schwarte: Der Ausbruch des 
Zweiten Punischen Krieges. Rechtsfrage und 
Uberlieferung. 1983. XV, 108 S., kt. 3655 - 5 

44. Joseph Vogt: Sklaverei und Humanitat Stu- 
dien zur antiken Sklaverei und ihre Erfor- 
schung. Erganzungsheft zur 2. erw. AufK (Hi- 
storia-linzelschriften, Heft 8). 1 983. VII 78 S 
4Taf.,kt 3877-9 


45. Robert J. Buck: Agriculture and Agricultural 
Practice in Roman Law. 1983.. 59 S., kt. 


46. Gerold Walser: Summus Poeniunus. BeitrS- 
ge zur Geschichte des GroBen St. Bernhard- 
Passes in romischer Zeit. 1984. 140 S. m. 
Katalog m. 43 Abb., 18 Taf., kt. 4183-4 

47. Joseph Geiger: Cornelius Nepos and An- 
cient Political Biography. 1985. 128 S., kt. 


48. Gerold Walser: Via per Alpes Graias. BeitrS- 
ge zur Geschichte des Kleinen St. Bernhard- 
Passes in rdmischer Zeit. 1986. 97 S. m. 58 
Abb. auf 40 Taf ., kt 4541-4 

49. Jack Martin Balcer: Herodotus & Bisitun. 
Problems in ancient Persian historiography. 
1987. 166 S. m. 7 Taf., kt. 4790 - 5 

50. Herbert Benner: Die Politik des P. Ciodius 
Pulcher. Untersuchungen zur Denaturierung 
des Clientelwesens in der ausgehenden rdmi- 
schen Repubiik. 1987. 189 S., W. 4672 - 

51. Giuseppe Zecchini: II Carmen de bello 
Actiaco. Storiografia e lotta politica in eta augu- 
stea. 1987. 109 S., kt. 4887-1 

52. John F. Drinkwater: The Gallic Empire. 
Separatism and Continuity in the North-We- 
stem Provinces of the Roman Empire, A. D. 260 
- 274. 1 987. 276 S., kt. 4806 - 5 

53. Gerold Walser, Hrsg.: Die Einsiedler In- 
schriftensammiung und der Pilgerfuhrer 
durch Rom (Codex Einsidlensis 326). Facsi- 
mile, Umschrift, Ubersetzung und Kommentar. 
1987. 230 S. u. 8 Taf., kt. 4912-6 

54. Edwin S. Ramage: The Nature and Purpose 
of Augustus' "Res Gestae". 1987. 168 S., kt. 


55. Peter Herz: Studien zur rdmischen Wirt- 
schaftsgesetzgebung. Die Lebensmittelver- 
sorgung. 1988. 403 S., kt. 4805 - 7 

56. WaTdemar Heckel: The Last Days and Testa- 
ment of Alexander the Great A Prosopogra- 
phic Study. 1988. XIV, 1 14 S., kt. 5092 - 2 

57. Leon hard Alexander Burckhardt: Potitische 
Strategien der Optimaten In der spaten rd- 
mischen Repubiik. 1988. 296 S., kt. 5098 - 1 

58. Binyamin Shimron: Politics and Belief in 
Herodotus. 1989. IX, 126 S. t kt. 5240 - 2 

59. Lukas Thommen: Das Volkstribunat der 
spaten Rdmischen Repubiik. 1988. 287 S., 
kt. 5187-2 

60. Heinz E. Herzig / Regula Frei-Stolba, Hrsg.: 
Labor omnibus unus. Gerold Walser zum 70. 
Geburtstag dargebracht von Freunden, Kolle- 
gen und Schulem. 1989. XVI, 278 S., kt. 


61. Raban von Haehling: Zeitbezuge des T. Li- 
vius in der ersten Dekade seines Ge- 
schichtswerkes: Nee vitia nostra nee remedia 
pati possumus. 1989. 248 S., kt. 5117-1 

62. Martin Frey: Untersuchungen zur Religion 
und zur Religionspolitik des Kaisers Etaga- 
bal. 1 989. IV, 1 25 S., kt. 537W) 

63. Michael Weiskopf: The so-called „Great 
Satraps* Revolt", 366-360 B.C. Concerning 
Local Instability in the Achaemenid far West. 
1989. 112 S.,kt. 5387-5 

64. Thomas Grunewald: Constantinus Maxi- 
mus Augustus. Herrschaftspropaganda in der 
zeitgendssischen Uberlieferung. 1990. 320 S., 
kt. 5568-1 

65. Marinus A. Wes: Michael Rostovtzeff, Histo- 
rian in Exile. Russian Roots in an American 
Context. 1990. XXXI, 106 S. t Frontispiz u. 13 



Fot. auf 12 Taf. i. Anh., kt. 5664-5 

66. Edward Dabrowa: Legio X Fretensis. A Pro- 
sopographical Study of its Officers (l-lll Centu- 
ries A.D.). 1993. 128 S., kt. 5809-5 

67. Angelika Mette-Dittmann: Die Ehegesetze 
des Augustus. Eine Untersuchung im Rahmen 
der Gesellschaftspolitik des Princeps. 1991. 
220 S., kt. 5876-1 

68. Ralf Urban: Der Konigsfrieden von 387/86 v. 
Chr. Vorgeschichte, Zustandekommen, Ergeb- 
nis und politische Umsetzung. 1991 . 203 S., kt. 


69. Stefan Link: Landverteilung und sozialer 
Frieden im archaischen Griechenland. 1 991 . 
189S.,kt. 5954-7 

70. Sigrid Mratschek-Halfmann: Divites et 
praepotentes. Reichtum und soziale Stellung 
in der Literatur der Prinzipatszeit. 1 993. IX, 461 
S., kt. 5973-3 
Shlomo Berger: Revolution and Society in 
Greek Sicily and Southern Italy. 1 992. 1 23 S„ 
kt. 5959-8 
Stefan Rebenich: Hieronymus und sein 
Kreis. Prosographische und sozialgeschichtlt- 
che Untersuchungen. 1992. 328 S., kt. 6086-3 

73. Klaus Tausend: Amphiktyonie und Symma- 
chie. Formen zwischenstaatlicher Beziehun- 
gen im archaischen Griechenland. 1992. VIII, 
273S.,kt. 6137-1 

74. William T. Loomis: The Spartan War Fund: 
/GV1 f 1andaNewFragment1992.84S.,17 
Taf.,kt. 6147-9 

75. Karl Strobel: Das Imperium Romanum im ,3. 
Jahrhundert*. Modell einer historischen Krise? 
1993. 388 S.,kt. 5662-9 

76. Christopher Tuplin: The Failings of Empire: 
A Reading of Xenophon. 1992. 264 S., kt. 


77. Charlotte Schubert: Die Macht des Volkes 
und die Ohnmacht des Denkens. Studien 
zum Verhaitnis von Mentalitat und Wissen- 
schaft im 5. Jahrhundert. 1992. 200 S„ kt. 


78. Joseph Roisman: The general Demosthe- 
nes and his use of military surprise. 1 993. 84 
S., kt. 6277-7 

79. Pedro Barceld: Basileia, Monarchia,Tyran- 
nis. Untersuchungen zu Entwicklung und Be- 
urteilung von Alleinherrschaft im vorhellenisti- 
schen Griechenland. 1993. 345 S., kt. 6278-5 

80. Brian M. Laveile: The Sorrow and the Pity. A 
Prolegomenon to a History of Athens under the 
Peisistratids, 560-510 B.C. 1993. 147 S., kt 


81. Wolfgang Leschhorn: Antike Aren. Zeit- 
rechnung, Politik und Geschichte im Schwarz- 
meerraum und in Kleinasien nordlich des Tau- 
ros. 1993. XI, 576 S. m. 10 Taf., kt 6018-9 

82. Uwe Walter: An der Polls teilhaben. Burger- 
staat und ZugehOrigkeit im archaischen Grie- 
chenland. 1993. 242 S., kt. 6370-6 

83. Michael Rostowzew: Skythien und der 
Bosporus, Band II. Wiederentdeckte Kapitel 
und Verwandtes. A. d. Grundlage d. russ. Edi- 
tion von V. Ju. Zuev m. Kommentaren u. Beitr. 
ubers. u. hrsg. von Heinz Heinen. 1993. VIII, 
263 S., 36 Taf. u. 4 Ktn. in Kartentasche, kt. 


84. Julia Sunskes Thompson: Demonstrative 
Legitimation der Kaiserherrschaft im Epo- 
chenvergleich. Zur politischen Macht des 
stadtr6mischen Volkes. 1993. VII, 103 S., kt 

641 5-X 

85. Werner HuB: Der makedonlsche Kdnig und 
die figyptischen Prlester. Studien zur Ge- 
schichte des ptolemaiischen Agypten 1994. 
238 S., kt. 6502-4 

86. Gerold Walser: Studien zur Alpengeschich- 
te in antiker Zeit. 1994. 139 S. u. 10 Taf kt. 


87. David Whitehead, Ed.: From Political Ar- 
chitecture to Stephanus Byzantius. Sources 
for the Ancient Greek Polls. 1994. 124 S., 11 
Abb., kt. 6572-5 
(zugleich: Papers from the Copenhagen Polis 
Centre, Vol. 1) Lt , 

88. Bernhard Kremer: Das Bild der Kelten bis in 
augusteische Zeit Studien zur Instrumentali- 
sierung eines antiken Feindbildes bei griechi- 
schen und r6mischen Autoren. 1 994. 362 S., kt. 


89. Joachim Szidat: Historischer Kommentar 
zu Ammianus Marcellinus Buch XX-XXI. Teil 
III: Die Konfrontation. 1996. 293 S., kt. 
(vgl. Bde. 31 u. 38) ^ 6570-9 

90. Odile De Bruyn: La competence de I Areo- 
page en matiere de proces publics. Des 
origines de la polis athenienne a la conquSte 
romaine de la Grece (vers 700-1 46 avanl t J.-C.) 
1995. 226 S.,kt. 6654-3 

91. Lothar Wierschowski: Die regionale Mobili- 
tat in Gallien nach den Inschnften des 1. bis 
3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Quantitative Studien 
zur Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichteder west- 
lichen Provinzen des Rdmischen Retches. 
1995. 400 S.,kt 6720-5 

92 Joachim Ott: Die Benef iciarier. Untersuchun- 
gen zu ihrer Stellung innerhalb der Rangord- 
nung des Rdmischen Heeres und zu ihrer Funk- 
tion 1995. 246 S.. kt. ^ u £660-8 

93. Andrew Drummond: Sallust and the Execu- 
tion of the Catilinarian Conspirators. 1995 
136 S kt 6741-8 

94. HeinrichSchlange-Schdningen: Kaisertum 
und Bildungswesen im spatantiken Kon- 
stantinopel. 1995. VIII, 189 S., kt. 6760-4 

95. Mogens Herman Hansen and Kurt Raaf laub 
(Eds.): Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis. 
1995. 219 S.,kt 6759-0 

96. Martin Jehne (Hg.): Demokratie In Rom? Die 
Rolle des Volkes in d3er Politik der rdmischen 
Repubiik. 1995. VII. 141 S., kt. 6860-0 

97. Vaferie M. Warrior: The Initiation of the Se- 
cond Macedonian War. An Explication of 
Livy Book 31 . 1 996. Ca. 1 20 S. t kt 6853-8 

98. Raimund Friedl: Der Konkubinat im kaiser- 
zeitlichen Rom. Von Augustus bis Septimius 
Severus. 1996. 417 S. ( kt. 6871-6 

99. Christopher Tuplin: Achaemenid Studies. 
1996. 226 S.,kt 6901-1 

Interpretationen. Gerold walser zum 75. Ge- 
burtstag dargebracht von Freunden, Kotlegen 
und Schulem. 1995. 212 S. m. 3 Taf., kt. 


101.Leonhard A. Burckhardt: Burger und Sol- 
daten. Aspekte der politischen und militari- 
schen Rolle athenischer Burger im Kriegswe- 
sen des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. 1 996. 300 S., 
14 6832-5 

1 02. Julia Heskel: The North Aegean Wars, 371- 
360 B.C. 1996. Ca. 180 S., kt 6917-8 

103. Lukas Thommen: Lakedaimonion Politeia. 
Die Entstehung der spartanischen Verfas- 
sung. 1996. 170 S, kt 6918-6 

104. Luisa Prandi: Fortuna e realta dell'opera di 
Clitarco. 1996. Ca. 200 S., kt. 6947-X 

105. Jerzy Linderski (ed.): Imperium Sine Fine: 
T. Robert S. Broughton and the Roman 
Republic. 1996. X, 234 S. u. 1 Taf., kt. 


106. Karl Christ: Griechische Geschichte und 
Wissenschaftsgeschichte. 1 996. 238 S. m. 7 
Taf , kt 6915-1 

107. Eric. W. Robinson: Beyond Athens. The 
EariiestGreek Democracies. 1996. Ca. 160S., 
kt. 6951-8 

108. Mogens Herman Hansen / Kurt Raaf laub, 
Eds.: More Studies in the Ancient Greek 
Polis. 1996. 196 S., kt. 6969-0 

109. Victor Parker: Untersuchungen zum Lelan- 
tischen Krieg. 1996. Ca. 160 S. t kt. 6970-4 

110 Ulrich Gotten Der Diktator ist tot! Politik in 
Rom zwischen den Iden des MSrz und der 
Begrundung des Zweiten Triumvirats. 1996, 
316S.,kt. 6815-5